West Thurrock and South Stifford Including Community and Health Facilities, Primary Schools and Shopping Facilities

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

Reference: Site: Lakeside Shopping Centre, West Thurrock Way, West Thurrock, Essex, RM20 2ZP 11/50433/TTGOUT Proposal: Date of expiry: Part demolition of existing Debenhams store and demolition of existing th 26 March 2012 bus station. Alteration and extension of the Northern end of the shopping centre including erection of new buildings for uses within use classes A1- Ward: A5 and a new multi-storey car park. Erection of a new bus station and the alteration and extension of the shopping centre on its Eastern side West Thurrock and including the erection of new buildings for uses within use classes A1-A5. South Stifford Provision of new public realm and landscaping area. Provision of temporary bus station comprising works to existing surface car parking

area, alterations of existing and construction of new vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access and egress arrangements and car parking and other ancillary works and operations. Plan Number:

Parameters Plan 1 – Outline application site boundary 080141-D-301 B 30.01.12 Parameters Plan 2 – Existing site 080141-D-302 B 30.01.12 Parameters Plan 3 – Plot Plan 080141-D-303 B 30.01.12 Parameters Plan 4 – Minimum / Maximum siting 080141-D-304 C 30.01.12 Parameters Plan 5 – Minimum / Maximum heights 080141-D-305 B 30.01.12 Parameters Plan 6 – Landscaping / public realm and vehicle 080141-D-306 C 30.01.12 access works Parameters Plan 7 – Indicative sections and elevations key 080141-D-307 B 30.01.12 Parameters Plan 8 – Proposed sections AA-DD 080141-D-308 A 2.12.11 Parameters Plan 9 – Proposed sections EE-GG 080141-D-309 A 2.12.11 Existing street networks 9V7636/RH9 REV D1 31.01.12 Proposed street networks within Lakeside Shopping Centre 9V7636/RH10 REV D1 31.01.12

The application is accompanied by:-

 Planning application form, Certificate B and Agricultural Holdings Certificate  Planning Summary;  3 Environmental Statement Volumes I (Non Technical Summary); II (Non Technical Studies); III (Technical Appendices)  Environmental Statement Addendum (Feb 2012)  Site Location Plan (REF: 080141-D 301 A);  Planning Application Drawings;  Draft Heads of Terms of a Legal Agreement;  Planning and Retail Statement;  Design & Access Statement (includes Landscaping Strategy);  Transport Assessment (Appended to Chapter D of the ES);  Highways Technical Note (31st January 2012)  Further information – Transport Matters (24th February 2012)  Statement of Community Involvement;  Sustainability Statement (included within the Design and Access Statement, Energy PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

Statement and BREEAM Pre-Assessment Report);  Energy Strategy Note (received 21.02.2012)  Energy Statement and BREEAM Assessment (this is a pre-assessment); and  Flood Risk Assessment (Appended to Chapter G of the ES).  Various correspondence

Applicant: CSC Lakeside Limited Validated: 5th December 2011

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

1.1 This outline application relates to a Lakeside Shopping Centre (LSC). This report considers the planning issues raised by the outline application proposing part demolition of existing Debenhams store and demolition of existing bus station. The formal description of development is detailed below;

1. Alteration and extension of the Northern end of the shopping centre including erection of new buildings for uses within Use Classes A1 (Shop), A2 (Financial and Professional Services), A3 (Restaurants and Cafes), A4 (Drinking Establishments) and A5 (Hot Food Take-away) and a new multi-storey car park.

2. Erection of a new bus station and the alteration and extension of the shopping centre on its eastern side including the erection of new buildings for uses within use classes A1-A5.

3. Provision of new public realm and landscaping area.

4. Provision of temporary bus station comprising works to existing surface car parking area, alterations of existing and construction of new vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access and egress arrangements and car parking and other ancillary works and operations.

1.2 The following describes the development and provides references for the various elements of the proposal that will be used within this report;

 Northern extensions - Part demolition and alteration of existing two-storey Debenhams store which comprises the northern part of the existing LSC mall. Extension of the northern end of the LSC mall including erection of new buildings to the north and east for uses within Use Classes A1-A5 (inclusive). Erection of a multi storey car park. These extensions are referenced and described below;

o LSC1 – Principally comprises three elements described below. The extensions are proposed to accommodate a mix of A1 (Shop), A2 (Financial and Professional Services), A3 (Restaurant & Cafe) & A5 (Hot Food Take-away) uses. Service access to LSC1 is indicated from the west. - (a) Partial demolition, alterations and refit of the current Debenhams anchor store to form an extension to the mall - Part demolition of the existing Debenhams store with the majority of the existing structural frame and slab retained. Alteration and extension including increasing the height of the building to between +21.07m to +23.44m Above Ordinance Datum (AOD) and an internal fit out to create shops fronting onto a central mall. The proposal would extend the PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

current central mall. Illustrated along both sides of the new principal pedestrian spine of this part of the mall are 12 new units on the lower level and 9 units on the upper mall level with a mezzanine floor above. - (b) Two-storey extension to the east of the current Debenhams store – The extension is proposed to measure approximately 85m wide (north / south) by 47m deep (east / west). It is illustrated to accommodate 2 two-storey units fronting onto and north of the existing pedestrian entrance to the mall. This area currently comprises part of a service void and surface level car parking. - (c) A three storey extension to the northern end of the mall – The application proposes the erection of an extension to the north of the altered Debenhams store (described in (b) above) and over the footprint of the current bus station. To the north the proposed extension would abut an existing internal access road running parallel with the site’s northern boundary. The extension is proposed to measure 70m wide (north/south) and 95m deep (east/west). The height parameter of the building is between +22.82 to +23.44m Above Ordinance Datum (AOD). The illustrative plans detail this part of the extension creating an ‘anchor’ store accessed internally from the extended Mall. It is also detailed to have pedestrian access from the proposed new multi-storey car park (ref: LSC5). o LSC2 – A two-storey extension to the east of and adjoining the proposed extension ref: LSC1 described above. The extension is proposed east of the existing mall and within an area currently comprising part of surface level park No.6. The retail units created by the extension are proposed to have a principle southern orientation, fronting onto and accessed by customers from a proposed new external street and square running east-west to the mall’s north-eastern access. Service access is indicated from the east. The extension is proposed to accommodate a mix of A1 (Shop), A2 (Financial and Professional Services), A3 (Restaurant & Cafe) & A5 (Hot Food Take-away) Uses. The extension measures approximately 86m wide (north/south) and 70m deep (east/west). The height parameter of the building is between +21.25 to +23.25m AOD. o LSC3a – A detached one or two storey building located within and accessed from the proposed new external street and square south of extension ref: LSC2 described above and east of the existing pedestrian entrance to the mall. This detached building illustrated to comprise three units within either Use Class A1 (Shop) or A3 (Restaurant & Cafe). This area currently comprises part of surface level car park number 5. The proposed extension would measures approximately 30m wide (north/south) and 39m deep (east/west). The height parameter of the building is between +13.45 to +19.45m AOD. o LSC3b – A two storey extension to the south and east of existing north-eastern entrance to Mall. The proposed extension would front onto and be accessed via the new external street and square described above. The extension is proposed to accommodate Use Class A1 (Shop) or A3 (Restaurant & Cafe) Uses. The height parameter of the building is between +13.45 to +19.45m AOD. o LSC5 - Erection of a new multi-storey car park to the north east of the Mall. Vehicle access would be from the existing internal road located at the northern end of the LSC running east-west. This area currently comprises part of surface PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

level car park no 6. It would be 5 or six levels. The extension measures approximately 62m wide and 89m deep. The height parameter of the building is between +17.5 to +21.25m AOD. Whilst part of the development is on existing surface level car parks, given the proposed provision within the multi-storey car park, the application proposes no net gain in car parking within LSC.

 South-eastern extensions - Alteration and extension of the shopping centre on its south-eastern side including the erection of new buildings for uses within use classes A1-A5. These extensions are referenced and described below.

o LSC4a – Single storey extension to south-east to provide external units. This is proposed to be built partially over an existing external service void and surface car park 3. These units together with LSC4b described below are proposed to be located within and access via LSC4c which proposes a new extension that would provide a covered entrance to the mall and bus passenger waiting facility. The indicative plans details five units to accommodate a mix of uses including A1 (Shop), A3 (Restaurant & Cafe) and A5 (Hot Food Take-away) Uses. The extension measures approximately 54m wide and up to 28m deep. The height parameter of the building is between +14.14 to +15.64m AOD. o LSC4b – A one or two storey extension to the north of multi-storey car park no.2 and south-east of the mall entrance. They are proposed to accommodate A1 (Shop), A3 (Restaurant & Cafe) and A5 (Hot Food Take-away) Uses. This application proposes up to 1,991m2 GIA of convenience floorspace. This unit is illustrated as a convenience store. The extension measures approximately 40m wide and 30m deep. The height parameter of the building is between +18.64 to +20.64m AOD. o LSC4c – Single storey extension would provide a covered entrance to the Mall and a bus passenger waiting facility. It would be fronted by LSC4a and LSC4b described above. The height parameter of the building is between +14.14 to +15.64m AOD. This foyer would provide an enclosed waiting place for bus passengers and incorporate seating and bus telematics. Passengers would be set down and picked up from the external bus stops located immediately to the front of LSC4c. The waiting place would contain a series of doors that would open when the bus is at its stand and ready to receive passengers.

 New bus station - Demolition of existing bus station located immediately to the north of the main mall (currently the Debenhams end). The application proposed the erection of a new bus station to the east of the main mall and adjacent to the existing bridge link to Chafford Hundred Railway Station. The indicative plans detail 10 bus stands and a segregated ingress and egress within the internal road structure for bus use only. As part of the bus station development the applicant is proposing the provision of a pedestrian route to the north of the bus station adjoining onto the existing pedestrian crossing on the A126. The application proposes the creation of a pocket garden to the east of the proposed retail unit (LSC4b).

 Temporary bus station - The existing bus station will be displaced by the proposed retail extension. The application proposes the provision of temporary bus station for a period of 12 months within an existing surface car parking area to the PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

west of the main mall and adjacent to the cinema (currently car park No 11 which has 276 car parking spaces). This temporary facility is proposed to accommodate 8 bus stands and incorporate temporary bus shelters, information kiosk and signage.

 Public realm - Provision of new public realm and landscaping area. This includes the external street and square described above.

 New vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access and egress arrangements and car parking and other ancillary works and operations - Alterations of existing and construction of new vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access and egress arrangements and car parking and other ancillary works and operations. This includes the following;

o Works 1 – Works are proposed to the internal access that runs south from the Fenner Road access to the LSC. At present the access provides four traffic lanes. The proposed new bus station results in proposed changes to the access and egress onto this section of internal road.

o Works 2 – To facilitate the new ingress to the bus station the internal access road is proposed to be altered including a reduction from three to two lanes.

o Route 1 - A new 2.5m wide pedestrian and cycle path is proposed to the north of the mall running east-west along an existing internal street. This extends from the existing roundabout to the north-east of the mall to Alexandra Lake to the west. It adjoins an existing permissive track that runs along the north of Alexandra Lake and provides pedestrian access to Tesco’s. A separate application has been submitted proposing, inter alia, the continuation of the road and footpath link north of Alexandra Lake and providing a pedestrian, cycle and bus link to Tesco’s (ref: 12/50446/TTGFUL).

o Route 2 - Proposed footpath connections linking the northern path (Route 1), car parking and new retail and public spaces along the eastern side of LSC5 and LSC2.

o Route 3 - A new pedestrian and cycle path running from the proposed new bus station south and south west towards West Thurrock Way;

o Route 4 – Adjacent to the Alexandra Lake and west of the Mall is an existing footway which runs alongside the internal access road separated from the carriageway by a steel Armco barrier. It is proposed that the footway is widened by the removal of the barrier to create a wider footway (c.2m in width). It is proposed to resurface in permeable bound gravel. The illustrative section details a 1.5m high parapet wall with mesh infill along the boundary between the footway and the area edging Lake Alexandra. The applicant advises that this performs the role as a vehicle barrier. This route would connect onto Route 2 described above. Approximately half way along this route it is proposed to construction a cantilevered viewing platform over part of Alexandra Lake.

o Route 5 (Bridge) – On the 1st March 2012 the applicant submitted illustrative details of a pedestrian bridge across Lake Alexandra. The bridge does not form PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

part of this application but may be included in a Section 106 obligation. The accompanying document states ‘the applicant (CSC Lakeside Limited) will be obliged to design, secure planning and deliver a bridge across Lake Alexandra’. At the time of drafting this report, the Head of Term in relation to the bridge had not been agreed, in particular timing of provision and securing access over third party land to facilitate construction and access to and from the bridge.

In terms of the illustrative detail, the bridge is shown to span approximately 120m between the existing LSC ‘Boardwalk’ to the east and the lake edge to the west towards the opening between two blocks of retail units in the Lakeside Retail Park (adjacent Costa / Subway). The exact length and location of landing points are to be confirmed at detailed design stage. The bridge is detailed to be primarily a floating steel structure on pontoons, fixed at both ends to concrete abutments.

1.3 This is an outline application with the layout, scale, access, appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent consideration. Whilst all matters are reserved, the application is accompanied by nine Parameters Plans described below. The purpose of these plans is to provide a degree of certainty regarding the proposals and establish parameters to which the reserved matters will have to adhere;

- Parameter Plan 1 ‘Outline Application Boundary’ – this details the extent of the application site and the applicants ownership - Parameter Plan 2 ‘Existing Site’ – this details the existing site and areas existing buildings to be demolished or refurbished; - Parameter Plan 3 ‘Plot Plan’ – details the extent of development and plot identification numbers (as detailed above); - Parameter Plan 4 ‘Minimum / Maximum Siting’ – this fixes certain building lines and out with those details the minimum and maximum limits on the deviation of the siting of buildings. - Parameter Plan 5 ‘Minimum / Maximum heights’ details the minimum and maximum building height Above Ordinance Datum. - Parameter Plan 6 ‘Public Realm and Vehicle Access Works’ – this plan clarifies the extent of proposed access works within the site. - Parameter Plan 7 ‘Indicative Sections and Elevations Key’ - Parameter Plan 8 ‘Proposed sections AA-OO’ - Parameter Plan 9 ‘Proposed sections EE-GG’

Use – The floorspace of the various elements and uses are detailed in Tables 2 and 3 below. The Net Additional Gross Internal Area (NAGIA) for all retail floorspace is 40,704m2 of which between 3,053m2 to 4,884m2 is proposed to be used for A3 (Restaurants and Cafes), A4 (Drinking Establishments) and A5 (Hot Food Take Away). The amount of shop (Use Class A1) floorspace is therefore 35,820m2 to 37,651m2 NAGIA of which up to a maximum of 1,991m2 NAGIA would be convenience goods retail (i.e. Food and alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage, tobacco, news papers and non-durable household goods) with the remainder (33,829 to 35,700m2 NAGIA) comparison goods retail (i.e. clothing, shoes, Furniture & furnishings , household appliances etc). PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

The applicant advises that of the maximum 37,651sq.m NAGIA of Class A1 (Shop) floorspace the Net Additional Net Sales Area (NANSA) is 30,121sq.m (ratio of 1.25 to 1). NANSA is defined in Appendix ‘A’ of the former PPS4 Practice Guide as; ‘The area within the walls of the shop or store to which the public has access or from which sales are made, including display areas, fitting rooms, checkouts, the area in front of checkouts, serving counters and the area behind used by serving staff, areas occupied by retail concessionaires, customer services areas, and internal lobbies in which goods are displayed; but not including cafes and customer toilets’. This definition relates to sales area and therefore excludes backroom areas such as storage, cafes, customer toilets, offices ancillary to the retail use. Given that this is an outline application, the applicant has applied ratios to the NAGIA to derive the NANSA.

Layout - comprises the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces within the development are provided, situated and orientated in relation to each other and to buildings and spaces outside the development. Whilst layout is reserved Parameters Plan 3 (Plot Plan), 4 (Minimum / Maximum Siting) fixes certain building lines and out with those details the minimum and maximum limits on the deviation of building siting.

Access - covers accessibility to and within the site for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians in terms of the positioning and treatment of access and circulation routes and how these fit into the surrounding access network. No changes are proposed to the points of vehicular access to LSC from the public highway. All the proposed changes are to sections of internal roads. Parameter Plan 6 ‘Public Realm and Vehicle Access Works’ details the extent of proposed access works within the site.

Scale - relates to the height, width and length of each building proposed in relation to its surroundings. Whilst scale is a reserve matter, Parameter Plan 5 ‘Minimum / Maximum heights’ details the minimum and maximum building height A.O.D. Parameters Plan 4 fixes certain building lines and out with those details the minimum and maximum limits on the deviation of building siting.

Appearance - comprises the aspects of a building or place within the development which determine the visual impression it makes, including the external built form of the development, its architecture, materials, decoration, lighting, colour and texture. Whilst appearance is reserved, the details accompanying the application provide indicative details of appearance of the buildings and public realm.

1.4 Planning obligations

Below is the applicants proposed Heads of Terms;

No. Head of Term

1 Northern Link Road

(i) CSC will procure the construction of a link road as per the proposals in planning application reference 12/50446/TTGFUL or other similar route to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. (ii) If work has not commenced and been substantially completed by 23 June PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

2014 (i.e. 6 months prior to expiration of obligations within the Tesco planning agreement dated 18 July 2002 as varied by planning agreement dated 5 August 2008 for planning application reference 01/00231/FUL (the “Tesco Agreement”)) and the obligations in the Tesco Agreement have not been extended, obligation (a) will apply: (a) CSC will procure the construction of the link road in a location as per the proposals in planning application reference 12/50446/TTGFUL or other similar route to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority to a specification to be agreed sufficient to fulfil the requirement to be the Dedicated Bus Link under the Tesco Agreement on or before 22nd December 2014.

(iii) No additional retail floorspace shall be created unless the link road has been constructed as per the proposals in planning application reference 12/50446/TTGFUL or other similar route to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and has been completed by 23 June 2014 or 22nd December 2014 as the case may be in accordance with Clause 1 (i) or (ii) above.

(iv) Following construction of the link road CSC shall be obliged to grant bus operators and their passengers a right of way over that part of the road that falls within CSC site and access/egress to the public highway network via the bus station.

(v) Following construction of the footpath/cycleway to permit public access on foot and cycle over the permissive footpath/cycleway.

(vi) CSC will maintain a dedicated link road, permissive footpath and cycleway.

(vii) The sum of the Tesco contribution is repayable to Thurrock Council in full in the event that the link road is not completed in accordance with clause 1 (i) or (ii) above on or before 1st December 2014

Obligation on Thurrock Council

(i) Upon request to pay CSC the £270,000 contribution paid by Tesco under the terms of the Tesco Agreement to fund the link road / footway / cycleway. 2 Bridge Over Lake

(i) Within 1 year of commencement of development to agree a bridge specification with the LPA. This will be based upon the indicative details accompanying the planning application.

(ii) Upon agreement of the Bridge Specification CSC will use all reasonable endeavours to secure the necessary statutory consents for a bridge over Lake Alexandra.

(iii) Prior to the occupation of any retail floorspace CSC will construct a bridge over Lake Alexandra subject to securing the necessary consents outlined in no. (ii) above unless an alternative timescale is first agreed in writing PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

with the LPA.

(iv) CSC obligated to provide rights of way on foot across the bridge and onto the paths on CSC’s site and to permit public access on foot over the bridge. 3 Provision of New or Improved Linkages

(i) CSC to use all reasonable endeavours to obtain the necessary statutory consents and provide new footpath link to West Thurrock Way within an area to be defined and to a specification to be agreed within the legal agreement. 4 Public Realm Improvements

(i) Prior to the occupation of any retail floorspace to agree a scheme for public realm enhancement to the area between the proposed northern and southern extensions and their immediate environs. To be developed in accordance with scheme to be agreed and to include;

(a) increase the width of the public realm / footway along the eastern frontage of the Mall,

(b) details of existing and proposed landscaping,

(d) a timescale for undertaking the works.

(ii) Upon agreement of the scheme for public realm enhancement CSC will use all reasonable endeavours to secure the necessary statutory consents for the works. (iii) Implementation and completion shall be in accordance with the agreed scheme (unless a variation to the timescale is first agreed in writing). 5 VMS on Fenner Road

(i) Prior to occupation of any retail floorspace CSC will provide a Variable Message Signage system on approaches to Fenner Road. 6 Travel Plan

(i) Prior to commencement of development CSC will submit a Travel Plan for approval by the Council and thereafter implement it in accordance with the approved Travel Plan. There shall be no additional retail floorspace until the Travel Plan is agreed.

(ii) Within one year of the implementation of the planning permission the Council and CSC will set up and participate in a Travel Plan Monitoring Group to monitor and review the implementation of the Travel Plan.

(iii) To notify the Council 6 months prior to the occupation of any retail floorspace. Six months prior to occupation of any retail floorspace or as otherwise agreed CSC will provide Thurrock Council with a public transport contribution in the sum of £325,000 PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

(iv) The Council will either use the Transport Contribution to subsidise the provision of a Hopper Bus or upon request make available to the Travel Plan Monitoring Group to spend on measures to improve modal shift away from the private car in the Lakeside Basin.

(iv) The Travel Plan Monitoring Group will review the need to subsidise a Hopper Bus to serve land uses within the Lakeside Basin and if a subsidy is required then monies will be provided, as first priority, from the contribution above, subject to no. (v) below. The Travel Plan Monitoring Group will be responsible for establishing the Hopper Bus prior to occupation of any retail floorspace.

(v) If a subsidy is not required or circumstances have changed such that the Travel Plan Monitoring Group considers an alternative solution(s) is a more appropriate method to achieve modal shift objectives then the contribution could be used to fund the alternative solution(s). This may only happen with the written agreement of the Council. 7 Local Labour and Education/Training Initiatives

A. Education and Training Facilities

(i) CSC, through its contractor, will make available facilities (details to be agreed) for the purpose of educating and training from the commencement of development until the development ceases (or any such period first agreed). Details to be agreed prior to the commencement of development.

B. Apprenticeships

(i) CSC will use reasonable endeavours to ensure that its contractor enables a minimum of 5% of total personnel employed in the construction of the development directly or indirectly, to work on an apprenticeship which may be on or off-site.

(ii) A workplace coordinator will liaise with the Council’s nominated contact and the National Apprenticeship Service regarding the provision of each apprenticeship and providing monitoring reports to the Councils nominated contact.

(iii) CSC will use reasonable endeavours to ensure that its contractor enables a minimum of 5% of personnel employed in the construction of the development directly or indirectly, to work towards a National Vocational Qualification which may be on or offsite, for a period of 3 years.

(iv) CSC will use reasonable endeavours to ensure that its contractor undertakes an annual skills analysis of directly employed personnel to enable 75% of employees to work towards nationally recognised courses as continuous development.

C. Local Employment

(i) CSC will use reasonable endeavours to ensure that its contractor PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

considers people from the local area for employment and apprentice opportunities. Take proactive steps to ensure that employment and apprentice opportunities are brought to the attention of and taken up by people from the Local Area.

D. Local Procurement

(i) CSC will use reasonable endeavours to ensure the contractor sources goods from local suppliers and to consider all applications to tender received from small and medium sized enterprises located in the local area for the provision of goods and services (on the same basis as applications to tender received from elsewhere). This shall include

1. Companies in Thurrock shall be actively informed of opportunities to tender for business in supplying materials and services to the construction phase of the development

2 The developer and its contractors and sub-contractors to use reasonable endeavours to;

(a) source goods and services from local suppliers for the construction of the development. (b) advertise and offer tendering opportunities to SME’s whose primary address is in Thurrock through local business networks/associations, business lists approved by the Council and local newspapers (c) deliver seminars on procurement policy and phasing not later than 3 months prior to the programmed commencement of development. Seminars to be advertised through local newspapers circulating throughout Thurrock and through business networks. 8 Future Rights of Access

(i) CSC will provide rights of access within LSC’s road network as is reasonably sought by the local authority for routes required to facilitate access for SERT into and out of the new bus station.

(ii) CSC will provide free rights of access for a future public transport and pedestrian/cycling link (with no access to other vehicular traffic) to land to the north of Arterial Road. In the event that the right of access is not exercised within a period of 10 years from the date of the agreement that this right of access will lapse. 9 Safeguarding Route for Pedestrian/Green Bridge over West Thurrock Way

(i) CSC shall use reasonable endeavours to make available an area of land for free which will accommodate the footings of a pedestrian footbridge to cross West Thurrock Way on written request by the Council. In the event of the construction of the bridge rights, there shall be free pedestrian access to and from the bridge.

In the event that the right of access is not exercised within a period of 10 years from the date of the agreement that this right of access will lapse PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

10 The Bus Station – Provision of Land for Future Expansion

(i) CSC will make land available at nil cost for the expansion of the bus station if this is required, within parameters to be defined on a plan appended to s106 Agreement, for a period of 10 years from the completion of the bus station. 11 Public realm or other infrastructure improvements in the Lakeside Basin

(i) Not to commence development unless it has paid a contribution on the sum of £100,000 to Thurrock Council towards funding public realm or other infrastructure improvements in the Lakeside Basin. 12 Other centres within Thurrock

(i) Not to commence development unless it has paid a contribution on the sum of £185,000 to Thurrock Council towards funding complementary planning strategies in Grays town centre or elsewhere in the district 13 Access rights – footpath to Arena Essex

(i) CSC to provide land and rights of access to construct a footway from the A1306 along the spiral access to the A1306 to LSC in the event that the Arena Essex site is developed for either housing, retail or leisure uses and, once constructed, to provide a right of access on foot.

14 Car Park Management Regime

In the event the Council bring forward a Basin Wide Car Parking Management Regime (BWCPMR) and such a regime being included in the adopted Lakeside LDD and such a BWCPMR being adopted by Thurrock Council CSC agree to participate in its formulation and provide information to assist in its implementation. This could include;

(a) The supply of real time on the capacity of car parks to Thurrock Council or a nominated body

(b) linking parking management at LSC to a Variable Message Signing system

(d) Providing real time VMS / information boards within the site

Thereafter CSC where practical and reasonable to do so agree to participate in the operation of the BWCPMR linking parking management at their site to any future Basin wide variable message signing system. 15 Access through LSC

(I) Prior to the opening of the bus station hereby permitted, a route through Lakeside Shopping Centre to the bus station and Chafford Hundred Bridge Link will be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the defined route will be kept available for use by the general public at all times that buses and trains are operating at the bus station hereby permitted and at the Chafford Hundred railway station. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

1.5 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - The development is considered to be an EIA Development due to it being a significant urban development project, therefore, the application has been accompanied by an EIA under the terms of the EIA Regulations 2011. It is also accompanied by an Addendum to the EIA (Feb 2012).

The EIA and Addendum consider the environmental effects of the proposed development during construction and on completion and includes measures to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects on the environment. The findings of the EIA are presented in an Environmental Statement (ES) submitted with the application. The ES is accompanied by a large number of technical appendices.

Thurrock Council has a statutory duty to consider environmental matters and an EIA is an important procedure for ensuring that the likely effects of new development are fully understood and taken into account before the development is allowed to go ahead. EIA is, therefore, an integral component of the planning process for significant developments. EIA leads to improved decision making by providing the development control process with better information. Therefore, EIA not only helps to determine whether development should be permitted but also facilitates the drafting of planning conditions and legal agreements in order to control development, avoid or mitigate adverse effects and enhance beneficial effects. It is vital that the environmental issues raised by the application are assessed in a robust and transparent manner.

In order to fulfil the requirements of the EIA Regulations it is necessary to ensure (a) that Thurrock Council has taken into account the environmental information submitted, and (b) that any planning permission granted is consistent with the development which has been assessed. To achieve this second objective Thurrock Council has the ability to impose conditions and secure mitigation measures by Section 106 obligations. Conditions will require that the details of the development which will be the subject of applications for approval of reserved matters must fall within the parameters laid down by the outline planning permission. By this means the details of the development, albeit in some cases approved subsequently, will not affect the assessment of the effects of the proposed development set out in the environmental statement. The Environmental Statement comprises the following chapters;

 Chapter A: Introduction and Background  Chapter B: Scoping and Methodology  Chapter C: Site Description and Proposals  Chapter D: Transport  Chapter E: Air Quality  Chapter F: Noise  Chapter G: Water Resources  Chapter H: Ground Conditions  Chapter I: Socio Economic Effects  Chapter J: Visual and Townscape Analysis  Chapter K: Ecology  Chapter L: Inter Relationships and Cumulative Effects PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

1.6 Summary of the proposal and accommodation schedules - The tables below summarises some of the main points of detail contained within the development proposal.

Table 1: Summary

Land Use Allocation: LDF Core Strategy Inset Map (West): Shopping Centre Site Area: 8.6ha Number of Units 30-40 new shops Parking Car parking provision to match existing capacity (c.13,000 spaces) with surface car parking lost as part of the development being replaced in a new Multi- storey car park. Employment Up to 1,130 temporary construction jobs (equivalent to 113 full time equivalent direct jobs and a further 23 indirect jobs)

Once completed, up to 2,600 net additional jobs at a local level. Up to 790 jobs indirectly supported elsewhere in the region through wage and supplier spending (D&A, p20) Total Capital Investment £180m over three years (D&A, p20) Current Lakeside Circa 133,000 sq.m Gross Retail Space – comprising Shopping Centre 260 shops, 3 Anchor Stores, 1,100 seat food court plus 30 cafes and restaurants, banks, building societies, travel agents, leisure uses including a 7- screen cinema). (ES, para I4.27)

Based on an employment survey of the LSC in August/September 2011, there are an estimated 6,000 people permanently employed in the LSC and 1,250 seasonal jobs. In terms of direct employment, LSC therefore currently employs 7,250 people, or 4,880 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs (ES, Chapter 1, 14.20).

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

Table 2: Development Floorspace Summary

Scheme Demolition / Total New Build Net Change components part demolition and rebuild (GIAm2) (GIAm2) (GIAm2) Northern 11,628 53,544 41,917 Extension (Plots LSC1, LSC2 & LSC3) New bus station 155 4,762 4,607 and associated facilities Multi-storey car 0 24,103 24,103 park (Plot LSC5) TOTAL 11,783 82,409 70,626

Figures quotes are Gross Internal Areas (GIA) – this is the area of a building measured to the internal face of the perimeter walls at each floor level and as such include communal areas such as the Mall, service corridors, lift & stair cores, service accommodation, and demise partitions.

Table 3: Development Floorspace by Use Class

Use Class / Type of Use Proposed net additional Gross Internal Area (sq.m) A1 (Shops) 37,651*

(*of which up to a maximum of 1,991 would be convenience goods retail the remainder comparison goods retail GIA)

Net Additional Net Sales Area (NANSA) is 30,121sq.m A2 (Financial and Professional 3,053 – 4,884 Services) A3 (Restaurants & Cafes) A4 (Drinking Establishments) A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) Subtotal 40,704 Multi Storey Car Park 24,103 Mall space and other communal 5,819 areas TOTAL 70,626

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

2.0 THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA

2.1 LSC is located in the north-eastern part of the Lakeside basin. At the heart of the LSC is a shopping mall whose principal internal orientation is along a north-south axis. The main retail offer is located over two floors, with a food court on a smaller and centrally located third floor. The Mall contains a limited convenience provision, with a Marks & Spencer Foodhall providing the main grocery offer. The LSC also contains a number of small bakers, confectioners and health food shops. LSC contains a comprehensive range of national multiple comparison retailers and a considerable number of cafés and fast-food restaurants. The Lakeside Boardwalk contains a range of restaurants orientated towards Lake Alexandra and accessed externally to the mall. LSC also contains a 7 screen cinema located north of the Lakeside Boardwalk.

2.2 In design terms, the principal frontage of the shopping centre is orientated eastwards and contains three principle pedestrian accesses at grade. The surface level car parks to the east and multi-storey car parks to the south, west and north east of the mall provide circa 13,000 parking spaces. LSC has its own bus station, located externally at the northern end of the mall. This currently serves 13 principal bus routes.

2.3 To the west of the mall is Alexandra Lake. To the west of LSC and Alexandra Lake are the Lakeside Retail Park and a Tesco Foodstore, both of which are under separate ownership. To the south of LSC, beyond West Thurrock Way, are a car dealership and three large detached retail warehouses (Ikea, B&Q and Costco). The northern boundary of the site is defined by a steep cliff edge to the north of which is the A1306 (Arterial Road West Thurrock) and Arena Essex.

2.4 The LSC can be accessed from the public highway network via three access points described below;

 Northern access – The northern access point provides access to and from the A1306 (Arterial Road West Thurrock) which runs east-west, connecting to the M25 / A282 to the west at Junction 31 of the M25.  Central access – The central access point is a grade separated junction. It provides access from the A126 which runs north-south connecting with the A13 to the north. The junction with the A13 and A126 is provided with west facing slip road only i.e. traffic can only leave and join the A126 to the west. Access from the east of the central access point is gained by vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists from Fenner Road that passes on the north-west side of Chafford Hundred. There are two accesses into the LSC from the roundabout.  Southern access – The southern access point is from the roundabout known as Lancaster Roundabout connecting the LSC with the A126, West Thurrock Way (B186) and Heron Way. The A126 continues south to the junction of London Road and Stoneness Road and incorporates a footway along its eastern edge. Heron Way provides access to further retail areas south of the LSC such as the Mercedes Benz car showroom, Ikea and B&Q. West Thurrock Way provides access to the large retail areas located to the west of the LSC including the Lakeside and Junction Retail Parks. West Thurrock Way connects to the A1306 providing access PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

east-west and to the M25/A282. It is a dual carriageway, separated by a central verge. Footways and cycleways are located along either side of the carriageway and the road has a number of signalised crossing points.

2.5 Chafford Hundred train station is located approximately 150m from the nearest entrance point to LSC. Access from LSC is gained by way of an enclosed footbridge link over the A126. Chafford Hundred Train Station is located upon the Fenchurch Street, London to Grays line which is operated by C2C. Services operate at approximately 30 minute frequency.

3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The Lakeside Basin is a former chalk quarry, which was excavated in the mid-twentieth century. By the late 1970’s the site had been excavated. The completion of the M25 and the new A13 prompted major changes to the local economy making the area more attractive to distribution and logistics companies and to the retail sector. Distribution and logistics uses remain to the south of the Lakeside Basin. Major retail development took place in the mid-1980s with the completion of a Tesco superstore. This was followed by retail warehousing and the opening of the Lakeside Regional Shopping Centre in 1990. When completed, Lakeside Shopping Centre had a gross retail floor area of circa 106,000sq.m.

3.2 In the last few years there have been applications to create additional retail floorspace within LSC;

 10/50209/TTGFUL - Permission was granted in April 2011 for the ‘Erection of a roof extension to accommodate 2,040sqm (gross internal area) Class A1 (retail) floorspace’. The permission has yet to be implemented and remains extant. It permits the creation of additional retail floorspace at roof level located on the western side of the shopping centre. At the time of applying, this was to accommodate ‘Forever 21’.  08/00781/TTGFUL – Permission was granted in June 2009 for the ‘Erection of an extension to the existing retail store to be used for additional class (A1) retail floorspace and associated works’. This permission allowed the creation of circa 2,200sqm gross internal area as an extension to the Marks & Spencer store. This permission has been implemented.

3.3 Permission was granted in March 2012 for the ‘Provision of a new bus, cycle and pedestrian link road / path between Lakeside Shopping Centre and the Tesco Store, across the northern end of Lake Alexandra’ ref: 12/50446/TTGFUL. The road would adjoin the Tesco service road in order to facilitate the passage of buses. The legal agreement associated with permission for the expansion of the Tesco Store ref: 01/00231/FUL facilitates the passage for buses along a service road to the rear of the Tesco store and made available funding towards the provision of the remainder of the link between Tesco’s service yard and an existing road within LSC. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

4.0 THURROCK COUNCIL RESPONSE TO TTGDC

4.1 Prior to the transfer of planning powers Thurrock Council considered a report on the application at its February 2012 Planning Committee at which Members deferred consideration. At the 8th March 2012 Planning Committee, Thurrock Council resolved the following ‘The Council supports the inward investment in Thurrock and agrees that the comments made at section 2 of the report should be forwarded to the Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation’. Section 2 of the report is reproduced below;

‘2.1.1 The Council’s Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document Issues and Options Report includes a Chapter (Chapter 9.0 ‘Lakeside Regional Town Centre Plan’) on the transformation required for the northern part of the Lakeside basin to attain Regional Town Centre status, in accordance with the East of England Plan Policy ETG2 and Adopted Core Strategy policies CSTP7 and CSTP14.

2.1.2 The Chapter includes consideration of where the ‘Core’ of the Regional Town Centre should be. An ‘Expanded Core’ approach that sees the ‘Core’ incorporating both the Lakeside Shopping Centre (Zone A) and the Lakeside Retail Park/Tesco area west of the Lake (Zone B) is promoted. Of the two Strategic Spatial Framework Options which follow this approach, one includes comparison retail expansion of 41,000 sq m (gross) in Zone A in parallel with retail expansion on the opposite side of Alexandra Lake. The second includes comparison retail expansion of 30,000 sq m gross with additional retail expansion on the west side of Alexandra Lake (Zone B).

2.1.3 The proposals in respect of comparison retail floorspace expansion are, therefore, broadly in accordance with Strategic Spatial Framework Option 1. However, they exceed the levels of comparison retail floorspace expansion under Strategic Spatial Framework Option 2. In addition, the CSC proposals are not in accordance with certain principles for the transformation of Zone A that apply to both Strategic Spatial Framework Options. In particular, as proposed they do not bring forward the comprehensive mix of uses that the Options for Zone A require, including the integration of residential development and community facilities; nor do they orientate development outwards to the west in order to encourage establishment of a “parallel” core on the west side of Alexandra Lake. Instead the proposals are orientated towards the isolated north-east corner of the Lakeside basin. The Council has commented separately to the TTGDC that the application does not address concerns raised previously regarding the delivery of a safe, healthy, accessible and inclusive environment, where high quality design leads development and open space and where permeable public realm and active frontages are provided. Further, it has commented that the proposals do not address the constraints and opportunities which the site presents and which have been discussed with the applicant over the previous year.

2.1.4 The CSC proposals include (as a separate planning application) establishment of a link road to the north of the lake for the purposes of a hopper bus, as well as PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

a relocated bus station linking to the rail station at Chafford Hundred. These are in accordance with requirements for Zone A set out in Chapter 9.0 of the Site Allocations DPD. In addition, it is understood that the applicant is now proposing a bridge link across Alexandra Lake to the west side, which, subject to design requirements, could be in accordance with the requirements for a Regional Town Centre set out in Chapter 9.0.

2.1.5 The Lakeside Regional Town Centre Plan remains at the earliest ‘Issues and Options’ stage of its development. The public consultation that will occur from March 2012 onwards represents the first opportunity for the residents of Thurrock, neighbouring Local Authorities, landowners and stakeholders to consider and make representations on the emerging direction of travel towards achieving a sustainable Regional Town Centre. The feedback the Council receives through representations will help it develop the vision and approach to a new Regional Town Centre at Lakeside, and thereafter to submit a sufficiently detailed and evidenced version of the Plan to the Secretary of State for Examination in Public.

2.1.6 Ahead of the policy position becoming clear following the Examination in Public, this planning application clearly precedes a full and proper consideration of how the transformation of the northern part of the Lakeside basin into a Regional Town Centre should be achieved. In the meantime, the embargo in the East of England Plan on retail expansion at Lakeside ahead of adoption of Local Development Documents and the imposition of appropriate conditions and obligations (to secure the objectives included in Policy ETG2) has the purpose of ensuring that the statutory planning process can be completed satisfactorily. It is considered that all stakeholders should have the opportunity to make representations on the options for the Lakeside Regional Town Centre, and contribute to refining the approach in accordance with the statutory process, given the importance of the Lakeside Regional Town Centre to the future of the borough.

2.2 Infrastructure and viability

2.2.1 The Council’s technical evidence base supporting the Site Allocations DPD includes an assessment of the Infrastructure requirements associated with transforming the Lakeside Regional Town Centre under the options put forward. This has been recently received and Officers have since met with Capital Shopping Centres to discuss the infrastructure requirements for the Lakeside Regional Town Centre and each of the Zones identified within it. Those discussions were ongoing at the time of preparing this report and broadly concerned whether the Council could form an early view about the type and scale of infrastructure as proposed within the application compared to the early estimates of the overall infrastructure requirement for Lakeside. It has not been possible to conclude whether the proposals are reasonable within the time available to date.

2.2.2 The Council will also need to advance its assessment of viability and approach to delivery and implementation at Lakeside Regional Town Centre over the PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

spring of 2012. This assessment will help the Council select between the options, or develop a ‘hybrid’ option, in subsequent stages of the plan making process. The operation and deployment of developer contributions via S106 obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will also be a key aspect of delivery of the Lakeside Regional Town Centre. (A report to Cabinet on 7th March 2012 seeks to agree the preliminary draft Charging Schedule for CIL for consultation).

2.2.3 The Council will also bring forward a Focussed Review of the Core Strategy over the summer of 2012 in parallel with the Localism Act provisions and National Planning Policy Framework roll-out by government. A review of the policies relating to Lakeside Regional Town Centre is likely to be included in light of the impending abolition of the East of England Plan’.

5.0 CONSULTEES

5.1 Dartford Borough Council: No objection.

5.2 London Borough of Havering: The Council continues to take keen interest in Lakeside Regional Shopping Centre in the light of its own significant and very successful investment in the regeneration of Romford Town Centre and several other town centres in Havering.

This Council objected to the Thurrock Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development because of Havering’s strong concerns about the proposed expansion of Lakeside. In summary, Havering took the view that the expansion was inconsistent with the well established overall approach to sustainable development as set out in PPS1. It said that Lakeside will continue to rely on car borne traffic from an extensive area and will not provide the full range of services and facilities representative of a town centre.

Havering considered that Thurrock’s draft Core Strategy failed to provide a clear land use planning context for the proposed development of the centre particularly in so far as the boundary definition was concerned.

Havering also emphasised the importance of the expansion of Lakeside being accompanied by the introduction of a car parking management and charging regime (see below).Turning now to the current proposal for the expansion of Lakeside.

Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England (2010) - Policy ETG2 of the Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England sets out the planning strategy for the Lakeside area including spatial and land use requirements to guide the successful transformation of Lakeside into a Regional Town Centre.

The Planning Policy section of the applicant’s Planning Summary report confirms on page 8 that the applicant understands that attaining Regional Centre status is dependent on conditions being met. It says: ‘Adopted regional policy (ETG2) sets the parameters for growth……and describes what should be done to achieve it.’ PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

The Introduction to the Planning Summary report for the current proposals is quite clear that the applicant’s vision is for the current proposals to form the first step towards the transformation of the Lakeside Basin into a Regional Town Centre by providing an enhanced retail offer and new state of the art bus station. However, Policy ETG2 also sets out very clearly the other important requirements that the attainment of Regional Centre status is conditional upon. These include the adoption of Local Development Documents providing for the introduction of a car parking charging and management regime (in paragraph 3(vi)).

This matter is given emphasis in the reasoned justification to the policy:

‘13.19d Unrestricted traffic growth would threaten the economic and environmental objectives for the area. Measures are proposed which will seek to actively manage travel behaviour across the Lakeside Basin and particularly at the new Regional Centre. A new car parking and charging regime should be introduced.’ (my emphasis)

Havering’s view is that the Regional Strategy is clear that the attainment of Regional Town Centre status is conditional upon several factors including the implementation of a car parking charging and management regime.

The Transport Section of the Planning Summary notes on page 9 that ‘CSC (the applicant) is continually reviewing car park management and will continue to do as part of this scheme.’ It does not, though, expand nor bring any proposals forward.

Havering considers that the current proposal is unacceptable because it makes no commitment to the introduction of a parking charging and management regime. As such, it fails to satisfy the requirements of the Regional Spatial Strategy policy.

Thurrock Local Development Framework (2011) - Thurrock Council adopted its Core Strategy in December 2011 and it is consistent with the Regional Spatial Strategy in respect of Lakeside. Two particular policies of the Local Development Framework are relevant to the current planning application.

Policy CSTP7 Network of Centres - Policy CSTP7 (Network of Centres) sets out how the Council will ensure that the development of Lakeside is consistent with the requirements in the Regional Spatial Strategy. In particular, paragraph 5.60 of its reasoned justification highlights that the Council supports the conditions set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy that Lakeside must satisfy to attain Regional Centre status.

Havering’s view is that this proposal, by failing to address car parking charging and management (as required by the Regional Spatial Strategy), will be contrary to Policy CSTP7 of the adopted Core Strategy.

Policy CSTP14 Transport in the Thurrock Area - Part 2 of this policy deals with the Lakeside Basin. It says:

‘Regeneration and remodelling of the wider Lakeside Basin and West Thurrock Areas will be taken forward with the following guiding principles :

iv) Introduction of a car parking charging and management regime.’ PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

As detailed above, the current planning application makes no provision for the introduction of a car parking charging and management regime. Havering considers very firmly that the absence of car parking charges and a management regime in the current planning application means that it is contrary to this policy.

Furthermore, unless car parking charges are introduced for Lakeside, it will be the only town centre listed in Policy E5 of the Regional Spatial Strategy which offers free car parking. If this is the case then it will enjoy an unreasonable competitive advantage over other town centres in Essex and Outer London including Romford which is derived from promoting and prioritising the least sustainable and most environmentally damaging form of travel for Lakeside customers. This will be to the detriment of their economic well-being and prosperity of the other centres and will jeopardise the investment that has been made there.

Therefore, Havering objects to this planning application unless any planning permission which is granted requires that car parking charges are introduced on implementation of the plans in line with Policy ETG2 of the Regional Spatial Strategy and Policies CSTP7 and CSTP14 of the Thurrock LDF.

5.3 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham: The Council has a keen interest in this application as many parts of the borough are less than 30 minutes drive from Lakeside due to the excellent access it enjoys from the A13. The publication of the Portas Review has once again focused attention on the future of the High Street and the relative attractiveness of out-of-town retail.

The Council recognises that the additional floorspace proposed is consistent with the recent revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England; however the proposal is not fully compliant with these policies. Consistent with the regional strategy the applicant is proposing changes which will secure the future of Lakeside as a regional town centre within the regional structure of town centres. However the Council objects to the applicant’s refusal to introduce car parking charges. The regional strategy only sanctions the expansion of Lakeside on the basis that it is planned in the future as a regional town centre and not an out-of-centre regional shopping centre. Consequently the regional strategy is clear that the attainment of Regional Centre status is conditional upon the implementation of a car parking charging and management regime.

The reason justification to policy ETG2 states at paragraphs 13.19c and 13.19d that:

13.19c - “…The new Regional Centre will provide the range of uses normally found in a town centre, including those set out in paragraph 7 of PPS4, and will become an important focal point for public transport services, with improved access for pedestrians and cyclists. Further strategic expansion at the new Regional Centre will be subject to a future review of the RSS.”

13.19d - “Unrestricted traffic growth would threaten the economic and environmental objectives for the area. Measures are proposed which will seek to actively manage travel behaviour across the Lakeside Basin and particularly at the new Regional Centre. A new car parking and charging regime should be introduced.” PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

Although the Localism Act abolishes Regional Spatial Strategies this is subject to the outcome of the current consultation on environmental assessments which finishes on 20 January 2012. Moreover the evidence for Regional Spatial Strategies if relevant can be taken into account in reaching decisions on planning applications. Therefore the evidence which underpinned the decision of the Inspector to recommend the introduction of car parking charges at Lakeside will be a material consideration and therefore cannot be dismissed. In this regard it is understood that the recommendation to introduce car parking charges at Lakeside was with reference to a similar set of circumstances at the Merry Hill Centre in Dudley where permission to expand was only allowed on condition that car parking charges were introduced before implementation.

Therefore the Council has no alternative but to object to this planning application unless permission is granted on the basis that car parking charges are introduced on implementation of the plans. Otherwise Lakeside will be the only town centre listed in policy E5 of the Regional Strategy which offers free car parking and therefore will enjoy a competitive advantage over other town centres in Essex and Outer London.

5.4 London Borough of Redbridge: London Borough of Redbridge (“LB Redbridge”) object to the continued growth of this out of town shopping centre at Lakeside on grounds described below. In particular, Redbridge consider that the plans will undermine the viability and vitality of neighbouring town centres such as Ilford and other towns in Redbridge. In addition to this, the basis for growth in retail capacity is now out of date and is not representative of the current retail growth trends which are predicted to be significantly lower than was predicted in 2008, particularly with the introduction of Westfield in September 2011, which is attracting a high population from the catchment in the area of this proposal.

Planning Policy Statement 1 (para 23) states: “Planning authorities should: (ii) Recognise the wider sub-regional, regional or national benefits of economic development and consider these alongside any adverse local impacts”

The borough of Redbridge has towns which are affected by out of town centres such Lakeside. It is important that there is an appropriate hierarchy of town centres which lead to a growth across the region for the benefit of communities around them. This is supported by Planning Policy Statement 4 (Policy EC3.1) which requires that Planning Authorities:

“define a network (the pattern of provision of centres) and hierarchy (the role and relationship of centres in the network) of centres that is resilient to anticipated future economic changes, to meet the needs of their catchments”

and that these centres are given priority for growth before out of town locations Policy EC5.2):-

“Sites for main town centre uses should be identified through a sequential approach to site selection

i) locations in appropriate existing centres ii) edge-of-centre locations iii) out-of-centre sites” PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

LB Redbridge is also concerned that the development proposals do not assess the impact of centres in the borough such as Ilford Metropolitan Centre, as required by PPS4 (EC5.4):-

‘In assessing the impact of proposed locations for development under EC5.1.d, local planning authorities should:

i) take into account the impact …, ensuring that any proposed edge of centre or out of centre sites would not have an unacceptable impact on centres within the catchment of the potential development ii) ensure that proposed sites in a centre, which would substantially increase the attraction of that centre and could have an impact on other centres, are assessed for their impact on those other centres, and iii) ensure that the level of detail of any assessment of impacts is proportionate to the scale, nature and detail of the proposed development”

These principles are maintained in the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as indicated by the following paragraphs:

“76: Local planning authorities should:

 recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support the viability and vitality of town centres  define a network (the pattern of provision of centres) and hierarchy (the role and relationship of centres in the network) of centres that is resilient to anticipated future economic changes”

“78. Local planning authorities should prefer applications for retail and leisure uses to be located in town centres where practical, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered.”

“80. Planning policies and decisions should assess the impact of retail and leisure proposals, including:

 the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and  the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to ten years from the time the application is made.”

The rationale for the development of Lakeside is described in the Spatial Plan (2007), the Lakeside and West Thurrock Masterplan (2008) and the Thurrock Regeneration Plan (2010) as well as documents provided with the Planning Application. These documents promote sustainable growth in the area through a mix of retail / leisure, industrial and residential development. The Regeneration Plan describes an aspiration for the centre to be a ‘Major Town Centre’, while the Spatial Plan (August 2007) notes that the Lakeside Basin / West Thurrock Riverside is planned as a hub with plans for 2,500 houses.

“Vision - The Vision for Lakeside and West Thurrock is that by 2021 it will be an exceptional place in which to live, play, work and visit. It will be re-defined as a PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

major town centre, not just a shopping area. It will be an exciting destination - a place where people enjoy a wide range of activities, both indoors and out. At its heart will be a leisure hub drawing visitors from all over the region. A new public space of national significance – an ‘‘Interactive Corridor’’ full of activity throughout the year will unite the site, linking the north and south. It will also be a pedestrian-friendly environment with new public transport and integrated signage”

However there is limited mix of uses proposed for the area with only one school (a primary school), no community or cultural facilities or health centres existing or planned to the west of the A126 and railway line. In addition to this, the residential population surrounding the centre proposed as part of the Masterplan will be separated from Lakeside by industrial sites and the boundaries created by the major transport routes, thus making access difficult. It is not clear from the application how likely the deliverability of this housing is or how access to services will be enhanced. Access is available to public transport although the A126 and landscaping is a barrier to Chafford Hundred station (as identified in the Design and Access statement) and the bus station appears to be poorly used, making the centre reliant on car travel which contradicts the guidance in PPS1, para 27(v):-

“Planning Authorities should… Provide improved access for all to jobs, health, education, shops, leisure and community facilities, open space, sport and recreation, by ensuring that new development is located where everyone can access services or facilities on foot, bicycle or public transport rather than having to rely on access by car, (PPS1)”

and PPS1 para 27(viii)

“(viii) Promote the more efficient use of land through higher density, mixed use development”

LB Redbridge also questions the validity of the capacity study which underpins the rationale for growth of the centre (Lakeside and West Thurrock Masterplan, 2008):-

“The Oxford Retail Company (ORC) study (commissioned by the TTGDC in 2006) identified a need for some 115,000 sq.m (1,237,860 sq.ft) of additional retail floorspace.”

A substantial amount of this (40,704sqm) is delivered through this scheme. Since this estimate was made, predictions for retail growth have been reduced significantly to a steady but modest annual rise. In the GLA Economics Working Paper 51 (Dec 2011), growth in retail employment was predicted to be well below the 2008 figures, even by 2036. The Planning Application reflects this uncertainty. The fragile growth of retail should be focussed on town centres in line with the recent recommendations from the Mary Portas review. Lakeside is not supporting town centres as is evidenced by the decline in Grays:-

“Once a thriving town centre, the number and quality of shops has declined since 1990, partly as a result of the Lakeside development. Today, it receives only 10% of the non-bulky comparison goods spent in the area.” (Spatial Plan) PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

This goes further to demonstrate the lack of connectivity between Lakeside and its surrounding urban infrastructure.

LB Redbridge welcomes the strong urban design approach to the retail development but questions the basic premise for the need for the development and the capacity in its catchment to sustain it, its negative impact on surrounding town centres and their communities and the integration of the Lakeside development with its context. Please ensure that these comments are taken into consideration prior to the application being determined.

5.5 Environment Agency - Flood Risk The proposed development site is shown by our Flood Zone Maps to lie within Flood Zone 3, the high probability Flood Zone. The Flood Risk Assessment has however advised that due to the presence of defences along the River Thames the site is protected in all events including the extreme (1: 1000 year) plus climate change, even in a breach scenario. The FRA has therefore not considered tidal flood risk in any detail which we agree with. The application area is however greater than one hectare in size so the FRA has also considered how surface water will be managed on the site.

We have reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), prepared by Hilson Moran, dated 23rd November 2011 and referenced 8456.07.B.01 issue 1.1 and consider planning permission should only be carried out in accordance with the drainage principles in the FRA, including the surface water strategy. We suggest you append a suitable condition on the planning permission to ensure this is carried out.

5.6 Additional Information - It is acknowledged that the development site is brownfield and currently served by a surface water sewer adopted by Anglian Water Services PLC. We note that Anglian Water have agreed discharge rates do not exceed 100 I/sec for up to the current 1 in 30 year sewer maximum discharge level. The surface water strategy has shown that there is an improvement on the current drainage scheme. The new scheme has included additional storage (1045 cubic metres) in the form of sub surface underground tanks. The new scheme will manage and store all surface water to existing brownfield development levels for the 1 in 1 year up to the 1 in 100 year rainfall event inclusive of climate change (140 I/sec/ha).

5.7 Aquatic Ecology - We have reviewed the ecology chapter of the ES which adequately addresses the aquatic ecology issues relating to great crested newts and fish in Alexandra Lake. The use of sensitive piling operations for construction of the viewing platform should help avoid any negative impacts on fish. If turbidity of the water column becomes too severe it is possible that reduced dissolved oxygen (DO) levels may lead to fish deaths. Therefore, the applicant is advised to remain vigilant during piling to ensure fish are not killed during periods of low DO. For example, monitoring of DO levels and looking out for gasping fish at the water's surface should be adequate safeguards to prevent harm occurring to the abundant fish populations.

5.8 Contaminated Land: risk to the water environment - The site is located on Chalk Bedrock designated as Principal Aquifer. It is part situated within a Groundwater Source Protection Zone 2 (SPZ 2) and part within a SPZ 3. There is also surface water in close proximity. We therefore consider controlled waters at this site to be of high environmental sensitivity. However we have reviewed the Ground Conditions chapter of the ES. Based on the information provided and subject to satisfactory PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

implementation of the mitigation measures as indicated, we consider the proposed development of the site would appear unlikely to pose a significant risk to controlled waters with regard to the presence of contamination. We therefore request the following condition is appended to any planning permission granted to ensure we are reconsulted should, during the development works, contamination be found that may pose a significant risk to controlled waters.

The EA has suggested certain conditions and informatives should planning permission be forthcoming.

5.9 Natural England – Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

This proposal does not appear to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes, or have significant impacts on the conservation of soils. Whilst the application is EIA, Natural England does not wish to comment specifically on the detail.

The lack of further comment from Natural England should not be interpreted as a statement that there are no impacts on the natural environment. Other bodies and individuals may be able to make comments that will help the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to fully take account of the environmental value of this site in the decision making process. However, we would expect the LPA to assess and consider the possible impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining this application:

5.10 Protected species - If the LPA is aware of, or representations from other parties highlight, the possible presence of a protected or Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species on the site, the authority should request survey information from the applicant before determining the application. The Government has provided advice on BAP and protected species and their consideration in the planning system.

5.11 Local wildlife sites - If the proposal site is on or adjacent to a local wildlife site, e.g. Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) or Local Nature Reserve (LNR) the authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local wildlife site before it determines the application.

5.12 Biodiversity enhancements - This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 14 of PPS9. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.

5.13 Highways Agency: (6.07.12) ‘I refer to previous correspondence in which I requested that the application was not determined before 8 June 2012 and I included form TR110 to that effect. As you will be aware, since then we have been working with the applicant consultants Royal Haskoning to understand the impacts of the development on the strategic road network. The outcomes of this work which included the modelling of the M25J30 were presented at a meeting with the applicant and his consultants last Wednesday. As a result of that work, it is the Highways Agency's considered view that there will be a material impact on the operation of junction 30 and consequently mitigation measures will be required to mitigate that impact. I consider that there will be a material impact with or without the implementation of a successful Travel Plan. Since the meeting there has been an exchange of letters regarding the robustness of the work undertaken, but no agreement has been reached on mitigating the impact. I am confident that an equitable solution to the impact on the junction can be found. Consequently, I request that the application is not determined before 13 July to enable further discussions and I attach form TR110 to this effect’.

The TR110 directs that planning permission not be granted for a specified period, in this instance the 13th July 2012. Members will be updated.

5.14 Thurrock Council Highways: Recommendation: No objections with Section 106 and conditions.

5.15 Summary - The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) sets out a strategic policy. It does not contain a level of detail that would enable a full appraisal of these development proposals. The relevant RSS and LDF Core Strategy Policies are set out in Appendix A of this response. At the time of the original January 2012 highways consultation response, an appraisal of the proposals against the criteria of Policy ETG2 parts 2 and 3 and LDF Core Strategy policies were undertaken. This attempted to pre-empt what a Local Development Document may contain and whether these proposals go sufficiently far towards the delivery of a Regional Town Centre. Such an exercise is different from purely considering mitigating the transport impact arising from the expansion proposals. Since that exercise was undertaken the LDF SSADPD consultation draft has been published and there have been amendments and additions to the proposals summarised below: - Addition of a pedestrian bridge link across the lake - Provision for future expansion of the proposed relocated Bus Station - Planning Permission has been granted for a bus and pedestrian link to Tesco’s and a commitment to its provision - Commitment to funding a Shuttle Bus - Agreement to provide rights of access within the site road network for SERT - Agreement to provide access rights for a future bus and pedestrian link within the site to land north of the Arterial Road - Agreement to safeguard land within the site to accommodate the landing of a pedestrian bridge across West Thurrock Way - Agreement to provide rights of access for a footway along the spiral access to the A1306, if land to the north is developed - Improved pedestrian links around the periphery of the shopping centre - Real time public transport information in the Bus Station and shopping centre PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

- Variable Message System (VMS) to advise drivers of queues on Fenner Road and diversion routes - Agreement that a pedestrian route will be available through the shopping centre to the Rail Station until the last scheduled train.

These measures deliver or make future provision for non-car links between the Lakeside Shopping Centre (LSC) and the rest of the basin. This will better enable visitors and employees to the Retail Parks to use public transport and reduce the number of linked vehicle trips. In particular visitors to LSC could walk across or around the Lake to Land Securities/Tesco’s and vice versa or use the shuttle bus service, rather than using the car.

These incentive measures make the alternative modes of transport more attractive. It has now been agreed that these alternative mode incentive measures are predicted to give rise to a modal shift away from the private car of up to 3.25 % at the LSC, along with a modal shift of approximately 1.1% in the retail park to the west of the Lake.

The other major tool in achieving modal shift from car to other modes would be travel demand measures (TDM). These measures would increase the actual or perceived cost in travel by car to Lakeside, for example tolls, road charging, car parking charging, limiting the availability of car parking and congestion management. RS Policy ETG2 sets out the requirement for the introduction of a car parking charging and a management regime. This is further re-iterated in LDF CS Policy CST14. The applicant has not agreed to the policy requirement to impose parking charges as a TDM nor have they agreed to take part in a future management regime as part of the strategic management of Town Centre car parking stock. Part of the applicant’s case is that parking charging is not needed to achieve a commensurate level of modal shift with that envisaged within the RSS Single Issue Review. The supporting information from the Single Issue Review suggests that these TDM could give rise to a 5% modal shift across the northern Lakeside Basin as a whole.

In the current circumstances the applicant is unlikely to agree to the parking charging approach and consequently the opportunity afforded by the other transport incentives may be lost if the policy is rigidly applied at this time. In particular the application site is pivotal in allowing delivery of the incentive measures, by improving links between the Rail/Bus Station and the rest of the Retail Park. Without these linkages on the application site, any incentive measures envisaged within the wider area would be ineffective. On the basis of the evidence available the incentive measures could deliver 3% - 4% modal shift and the TDM’s could deliver up to a further 5%, i.e. a total achievable of 8% - 9%. The latter of course requires the cooperation of the other landowners. On balance, the risk of losing the package of transport incentive measures to the wider basin, outweigh the benefits of the potential parking charging scheme. Nevertheless it is recommended that there is a phased approach to a future parking charging/management regime. The basic requirement at this time would be for the applicant to agree to a future parking management regime, which could, at some point, provide data for joined up Variable Message Systems, advising drivers of parking availability in respective areas and for congestion management. Parking charging as a TDM could then be considered when the next phase of development proposals comes forward. If you are mindful to recommend this application for approval, it is recommended that this additional obligation is secured as part of any permission.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

The Lakeside Basin Preliminary Infrastructure Assessment has been published since the application has been submitted. This identifies a range of proposed Transport Infrastructure. The applicant has submitted a document outlining the monetary cost of their transport benefits package. The applicant’s costs appear to be an overestimate, however even allowing for some overestimation, the transport benefits package does appear to be proportionate contribution towards the overall infrastructure requirements.

The other transport issues covered by conditions and planning obligations require some refinement as set out below, but are otherwise agree in principle.

5.16 Public Transport Appraisal - Section 3.2, of the Transport Assessment (TA), deals with Public Transport; the relocated Bus Station potentially augers well for integrated transport, a number of issues have been raised and addressed which are listed below:

a) The originally proposed 8 stands and layover facility at the proposed bus station were considered inadequate. A revised plan was received that shows a layover, 10 bus stands, with a separate set-down and a further stop that could be used by the shuttle service. It is agreed that this is theoretically suitable for demand; however it would have to be amended to be compatible with Transport for London (TfL) buses that have central doors for disabled access. It has been agreed that this can be dealt with by planning condition.

b) In addition to the above the applicant has agreed to a planning obligation for the potential future expansion of the bus station by a further 3 bus stands. The Heads of Terms of the Section 106 agreement (HoTs) indicate that the applicant will make the land available in the future, subject to there being 8 buses per stand per hour. This is an exceptionally high trigger, not least as there are only 36 departures an hour from the existing Bus Station. It is recommended that a more realistic trigger is agreed that reflects the need for future expansion, for example six buses per hour, per stand.

c) The proposed South Essex Rapid Transport (SERT) would potentially increase demand for bus stops, however this may to some extent replace the existing Service 100 facility. The SERT route would enter the LSC site and the indicative details shows bus priority measures including signalised bus gates that would require the cooperation of the applicant as landowner. The potential to incorporate bus priority for SERT has been incorporated into the HoTs.

d) Experience at similar sites has shown that despite pre-designed swept path analysis of bus movements; bus stands quite often do not work if buses have to manoeuvre “left hand down” to meet Kassel kerbs that abut the bus stand. It has been agreed that the testing of the swept paths can be subject to a planning condition, prior to the submission of the detailed design as part of the Reserved Matters.

e) The applicant’s agent has suggested that some element of Quality Bus Partnerships (QBP’s) can be incorporated into a planning condition and these have been provided by email on the 13/03 “Note on Future Bus Infrastructure”. This is confined to infrastructure at the Station, rather than on the Bus. But as the latter is to some extent outside the applicant’s control, this is agreed and the detail of QBP elements at the Bus Station can be finalised as part of the planning condition. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

f) The applicant has agreed to provide Real Time Passenger Transport Information (RTPI) in the Bus Station and elsewhere within LSC. This can be dealt with by planning condition.

g) It was recommended that the applicant contribute towards the installation of RTPI at Bus shelters on routes to and from Lakeside that currently do not have RTPI. The applicant does not consider it is necessary to make the development acceptable by introducing this RTPI to achieve modal shift and assert that the greatest impact for RTPI is within LSC and the Bus Station. This is not agreed, as set out above, the exercise undertaken in this instance is pre-empting what a LDD may include. However since the time of the original response, the Lakeside Basin Infrastructure Report has been published which does not explicitly make reference to the need for off-site RTPI. .

h) The applicant has submitted details of the route, operation and estimated subsidy for the establishment and operation a new shuttle bus service. It is envisaged this would be a 15 minute service with two buses that would operate a circular route around the northern basin and London Road / Oliver Road. The applicant’s assessment details the subsidy lasting for 3 years after which it is anticipated that the service would be financially viable. Further details of the financial viability and a sensitivity test of varying levels of fare income have been requested. This information has not been supplied; however, our own examination suggests if there is a more modest level of patronage, then the subsidy is only likely to last 4- 5 years. The applicant has agreed that the funding could be controlled by a Travel Plan Committee (TPC) which could be cross-subsidised from other Section 106 funding arising from other developments within the Lakeside Basin and that the subsidy could be redirected to other transport initiatives if necessary.

i) It was recommended that further investigation be undertaken concerning providing cost / benefit of the financial support going towards funding marginal bus services running late into the evening or at weekends compared to that of a shuttle bus. The applicant advises that the bus operator’s opinion is that the shuttle bus funding is the most cost effective use of this subsidy. Furthermore they point out that Ensign is already trialling a late night commercial service.

j) It has been agreed that details of the bus driver’s facilities at the new Bus Station will be secured by planning condition.

k) During construction there will be a temporary Bus Station on the Cinema car park, this is referenced in Para 7.2.3 of the TA which concludes that this will not lead to any adverse impact on the wider street network. It has since been agreed that the layout, signing of the temporary bus station and the re-provision of displaced Cinema disabled parking can be dealt with by planning condition.

5.17 Shuttle Bus and Tesco’s Link - The proposed bus link between LSC and Tesco’s has been granted planning permission. Subject to construction and the granting of access rights over CSC’s land, this bus link would allow the proposed shuttle bus and some existing registered services to circulate around to the retail parks, without negotiating queues on West Thurrock Way. The applicant has informally set out how the bus link will be delivered; this and access rights need to be finalised through the heads of terms.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

The legally binding bus route through Tesco’s site is through their existing service yard; however, there is an alternative route on land slightly further to the north. The applicant’s agent advises that Tesco’s have yet to indicate a preference for either scheme. The most prudent way to proceed would be to allow for an “either/or” arrangement that would allow flexibility in implementation and it is recommended that this provision is incorporated into the HoT’s (subject to it not effecting rights of access established by the Tesco agreement).

Details of the barrier and access control to the bus link can be dealt with by planning obligation. This is agreed with the applicant’s agent.

5.18 Link with Arena Essex - The applicant has agreed that provisions will be made in the HoTs for access rights for a future public transport / pedestrian and cycle link to land to the north of the Arterial Road (A1306) should this link come forward in the next 10 years. This has been included in the heads of terms.

5.19 Walking and Cycling - Setting aside the existing bridge to the Station, there are 3 main potential routes to the rest of the basin that need consideration; (1) the SSADPD identifies the potentially to bridge the Lake. (2) links to the north of the Lake, (3) links to the south of the Lake.

With regards (1), it is considered that a link between the Boardwalk and the Land Securities would be of immense value, potentially removing large numbers of vehicle movements from West Thurrock Way and helping to reduce severance issues elsewhere in the Basin. The applicant has now agreed to provision of a Pontoon Bridge between the Boardwalk and Land Securities, the details of its provision and future public rights of access need to be finalised through the HoTs.

With regards (2), the proposals include a footway link to the north of the Lake to tie-in with Tesco’s existing commitment for a bus and pedestrian route. The Tesco’s agreement provides for a permissive footpath along the eastern side of their store that could be revoked if there were security issues. Details of the exact route can be agreed by planning condition, but it would clearly be preferable for this route to directly enter the Tesco’s car park (with Tesco’s agreement), rather than connect to the existing narrow permission route alongside the service yard. The applicant has agreed that both routes can be incorporated into the HoTs.

With regards (3), this is very difficult to plan for at this stage due to uncertainty about what form development patterns may take to the south of West Thurrock Way. The applicant’s initial proposals involve a zebra crossing of the 2 lanes of traffic on the Multi- storey car park (MSCP) access road, two zebra crossings across the 4 lanes of the southern perimeter road. If pedestrians wish to continue onto the south side of West Thurrock Way to access IKEA, B&Q or Costco, they can do so across those 4 lanes of traffic using the existing Pelican crossing. This is of course 10 lanes of traffic and when read in conjunction with the existing cluster of accidents on West Thurrock Way, (see comments below), it could at best be described as an interim solution, pending delivery of some form of grade separated link across West Thurrock Way. Additionally the applicant has agreed to improve the short length of informal footpath to the south-east of the dive centre. Following further negotiations the applicant has however agreed in principle that a future bridge link to the south could be landed within their site. In the absence of any clarity concerning development patterns and the siting of a bridge, this is probably the best that can be achieved in the short term, unless of course some PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

development comes forward on the southern side of the Lake that could provide a short bridging link.

The applicant has now improved pedestrian links around the periphery of the LSC to a level that would provide basic access outside of the centre opening times. It is noted however that these do not necessarily take advantage of the full opportunities in respect of public realm alongside the eastern side of the Lake and the eastern side of the centre. This is subject to ongoing discussion with the applicant and the Planning Officer. The applicant has informally indicated that if Leisure proposals do come forward in the future, there is the potential to rationalise the 4 lanes of service road to the west of the Mall that would afford improvements to the public realm alongside the Lake. Delivery of these peripheral pedestrian routes should be secured by planning condition.

The applicant has agreed that pedestrian access will be allowed through LSC, between the Lake bridge and the Rail Station, until the last scheduled train departure. This should be secured through the HoTs.

The applicant has agreed to allow the provision of a footway on their land alongside the spiral access road to the A1306; if the land to the north is developed in the future. This needs to be included in the HoTs.

5.20 Road Safety - Section 2.5 of the TA deals with recorded personal injury accidents and concludes that the recorded accidents result from driver or pedestrian error with no specific deficiencies being identified with the highway network in the vicinity of LSC. Having reviewed the accidents, there are a few issues that arise;

Firstly there is a very high incidence of rear-end shunts principally on the approaches to roundabouts / junctions; this being some 50% of the accidents. In attributing this to some driver behaviour or local characteristic, there may be a case that heavy queuing traffic associated with retail trips has contribute towards this pattern of accidents. However there is no corresponding weekend peak in accidents, though there is some evidence of a peak in accidents between 12.00 – 15.00hrs, which would be more characteristic of retail peak traffic. The extent to which this will be exacerbated by a growth in traffic is unclear and similarly the extent to which this driver error can be mitigated against is doubtful. Nevertheless there is a case that the introduction of anti- skid surfacing on the approach to roundabouts could improve the situation.

Secondly, and more importantly, there is a cluster of pedestrian accidents to the south of LSC crossing the West Thurrock Way dual carriageway. Two occurred on the Pelican crossing and one occurred to the east of the Pelican crossing; two of these were defined as serious accidents. This may not be particularly surprising given this is a busy dual carriageway and there is nothing inherently deficient in the road network, aside of course from the fact of the severance it causes. However given the likely increase in demand across this route arising from the relocated bus stop, this reinforces the need for some form of future grade separated pedestrian link across West Thurrock Way as mentioned above.

The application provides the opportunity for a future bridge link to the south and the Lake bridge will reduce traffic movements on West Thurrock Way. On balance it is considered that further mitigation is not required.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

5.21 Traffic Impact - The original TA suggested that if the existing 84,001sqm. Net Additional Net Sales Area (NANSA) retail floor spaces were to be increased as proposed by 30,121sqm. NANSA it would result in an increase in traffic of 10.3 %. Further information has been submitted to assess the traffic impact, firstly based on traffic growth data following an extension at the Metrocentre and the percentage of linked trips within the basin have been agreed at 30%. This suggests the applicant’s proposal would result in a 7.2% increase in traffic. Secondly a sensitivity test based on traffic growth following Tesco’s extensions was used, which would suggest that the application proposals would result in a traffic increase of 18%, a 30% reduction factor was then applied to take account of pass by trips and diverted trips, which would result in a 12% increase in traffic.

A further assessment was undertaken using linear regression techniques which suggested the traffic increase would be between 7% and 11%. (Subject to a further 30% linked trips reduction). The assumptions used are subject to a degree of error. In addition the actual level of traffic impact is also likely to be impacted by external factors, such as competing retail sites, fuel prices, trunk road congestion, Dartford Tolls etc.

The range of impacts on the local road network from all projection options are likely to have the same mitigation, i.e. reducing linked cars trips within the basin in conjunction with various non-car measures and reducing car trips to the basin (The latter is considered in more detail below). However for the strategic road network it is likely that the mitigation may require improvements to Junction 30 on the M25, so reaching exact agreement on the degree of impact is very important in respect of determining how those infrastructure costs are apportioned. The impact and mitigation at Junction 30 is the subject of ongoing discussions with the Highways Agency.

The traffic distribution surveys in Figures 1,2 & 3 of the TA are very useful, in particular it highlights a very different pattern of approach traffic on a Saturday, with a very high proportion (62%) approaching from the west along the A13 and A126. Subsequently of these, 59% go via the Fenner Road/A126 roundabout to access the Shopping Centre. Traffic approaching this roundabout on Fenner Road will of course have to give way to traffic on the roundabout and this may account for the extensive queuing on the Fenner Road approach on Saturday afternoons. The applicant has submitted a scheme of mitigation at this location, which is considered in more detail below.

Notwithstanding the hypothetical traffic generation, combined daily traffic flows for the western A126 and A1306 approaches have remained fairly consistent for the last 10 years. The eastern A1306 approach has seen considerable traffic growth, along with very high levels of traffic growth on the A13 following the Wennington extension in 2001. The latter can of course worsen the A1306 situation, with A13 westbound traffic diverting onto the A1306 during congested periods. The conditions in the Lakeside basin have to be considered against West Thurrock Strategies’ St Clements Way Link that was opened in 2004 (which had been part funded by earlier expansion in the Lakeside basin). This link removed a large proportion of Riverside Commercial traffic from the Lakeside basin and has to some extent help to maintain the status quo on the western approaches. The eastern approach continues to be problematic with extensive queuing particularly during seasonal shopping times. The provision of east facing slip roads (EFS) between the A126 and the A13 would of course largely solve this problem.

Setting aside engineering feasibility and funding, the Highways Agency (HA) will consider EFS through the LDF modelling, provided that a strategic benefit can be PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

demonstrated. Provisional modelling results are available from the LDF and this does demonstrate an improvement at Junction 30 of the M25 as a result of the EFS. Therefore it may be that ultimately one of the solutions to managing congestion at Junction 30 will be the provision of EFS for lakeside. Therefore if there is a funding strategy for trunk road infrastructure, it is recommended that includes the flexibility to deliver EFS as part of a composite Junction 30 improvement, if indeed it is agreed by the HA. Conversely the HA may prefer enhancing the non-car improvements to further reduce impact in this area with increased funding to the proposed Travel Plan Committee.

The impact on 3 Local junctions has been considered in the TA, these are, (A) the A1306/Karting/LSC roundabout, (B) the A126/Fenner Road roundabout and (C) the A126/B186/Heron Way/LSC roundabout. There are varying degrees of existing problems at all junctions.

With regards (A), the applicant does not propose any changes to the A1306/Karting/LSC roundabout; this is the least utilised roundabout and is a low priority for improvement.

With regards (B), the applicant has proposed an improvement to the A126/Fenner Road roundabout to deal with the extensive queuing problem that occurs on Fenner Road during retail peaks. This involves introduction of inductive loops to detect Fenner Road queues, which in turn could advise drivers via a variable message system (VMS) on either the A1306 or Pilgrims Lane approach and advise them to divert to use the A1306 spiral access to Lakeside. The current HoTs provide for a financial contribution towards provision of this VMS. Given there is no certainty concerning the cost of this scheme, it is recommended that the applicant undertake to provide the works directly themselves pursuant to Section 278 of the Highway Act 1980. This obligation should be amended in the HoTs.

With regards (C), it is considered that the footbridge link will contribute towards mitigating capacity problems at the A126/B186/LSC roundabout by removing some linked vehicle trips from this junction.

The range of mitigation proposed is considered adequate to deal with the likely impact on the local road network.

5.22 Parking - The RSS policy ETG2 Part 3 (vi) makes reference to the introduction of a car parking charging and a management regime. The GVA SIR report refers to the introduction of various measures that would actively manage travel behaviour and improve access to new development, whilst enabling efficient movement of business related traffic. Amongst these measures were “demand management measures”; these would involve active management of car parking through improved driver information, pricing strategies and supply provision. Parking restraint or parking charges are of course a tool in encouraging reduced the use of the private car along with measures to encourage alternative modes. The degree to which the need for parking charging is required will to some extent be reliant on whether the alternative measures can achieve the same outcome; this is dealt with below in Modal Shift.

The application proposes no net increase in car parking. In evolving to a Town Centre the emerging work from the site specific allocations suggests the need for identifying strategic car parks and developing a variable message system (VMS) providing information about the capacity in those strategic car parks. Implicit in this arrangement PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

are operators sharing car park stock located east and west of the Lake with improved pedestrian links. Even at peak shopping times, the car parks either side of the Lake are very rarely fully utilised and therefore with a shared approach and VMS there would be the potential to rationalise the parking numbers in the Lakeside area, reducing the need for as much surface level parking and therefore allowing improvements to the public realm.

The applicant has withdrawn the offer of funding towards a VMS system citing total cost of s106 matters and development viability. The unwillingness of the landowner seriously undermines the ability to deliver a parking management strategy. At the very least the application should include a commitment to provide parking management at their site that can be linked to a future VMS system.

The applicant’s agent has twice responded to this point. Latterly, advising that should further development proposals come forward at the site, then this may offer the opportunity to deliver a wider VMS strategy at that time. This stance is perplexing as the infrastructure to manage the car parks will be embedded within the existing car park infrastructure, the only commitment is to providing that data on the quantum of parking occupancy in respective car parks, for use in an area wide scheme. Furthermore there would be a need to “name” car parks in a comprehensive basin wide signing approach. It is recommended that a planning obligation is sought or a planning condition imposed that deals with participation in a future car parking management regime.

Parking charges are something of course that will generate some resistance from retailers. The government have provided legislation to enable local authorities to introduce congestion charging and workplace parking levies with the aim of managing congestion and raising revenue to be hypothecated toward public transport schemes. Some local authorities essentially do the same thing in administering Town Centre car parks. Retailers however only tend to support a charging approach when their car parking stock is prone to use for other purposes, for example Rail commuter parking or Town Centre employees who park for longer periods. So it is difficult to see how that might unfold at Lakeside, as Rail commuters can be deterred by the car park being closed in the early morning and the employees are of course almost exclusively from within Lakeside and can therefore to some degree be controlled by the terms of their leases. The degree to which parking charges are needed to deal with modal shift are dealt with below.

The Westfield site advertises a “Find Your Car” application where you can enter your registration number on the Westfield Stratford City mobile application to see a photo of your car along with a map showing where it is. It was recommended that the use of advance transport telematics should be considered in development of a parking strategy, the applicant has confirmed that there is an application already available for I- Phone users and this will be rolled out to other smart phones shortly.

5.23 Modal Shift - The projected modal shift that can be achieved as part of the transformation of Lakeside is fundamental to consideration of how these proposals fit into the bigger picture. The TA includes survey data of the current modes of travel. This indicates that currently 85% of visitors to LSC arrive by car, 9% by Bus, 5% by train and 1 % walking. This of course does not highlight cycling trips, which is presumably due to the sample size and the relatively infrequent visits by cyclists.

To deal with the issue of projected mode share, the applicant submitted an initial technical note in February 2012 that includes historic footfall data; this shows a PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

continuing increase in footfall (aside from the opening of Bluewater) and also data concerning vehicles travelling to the shopping centre. The latter shows a significant level of yearly variation, but with falling vehicle numbers since 2009. The applicant concluded that given increasing footfall and falling traffic levels, this would equate to a more favourable modal share being achieved in recent years. It is unclear to what extent this has been has been influenced by fuel prices.

The applicant’s technical note set out the projected modal shift that may be achieved by their proposed incentive measures for visitors to change from car to other modes. This assessment is qualitative and is concerned with modal shift at the LSC arising from the proposed infrastructure improvements, rather than from the Lakeside basin as a whole. The data showed a current car mode share of 85% and had a target of a car mode share reduction of 10%. This was considered to be a significant over estimate of what the incentive measures could achieve and revised data was requested that took into account disaggregated modal shift at the Retail Parks and LSC. In order to understand how better non-car linkages to the rest of the basin would be beneficial to the mode share for the retail parks, historic data was considered that showed the mode share changes following the opening of the footbridge to the Rail Station. This showed that following opening of the footbridge, the rail mode share increased by 2.2% to 5.0% at LSC and bus access seems to have increased from 4.2% to 9%, this contrasts starkly with the Retail Park which is predominantly accessed by car.

The revised modal share projections from the applicants agent indicates the proposed incentive measures would give rise to a 3.25% modal shift at LSC and a 1.1% modal shift at the adjacent retail parks. This is considered to be much more realistic of the effects of the proposed measures.

Setting aside the incentive measures, the other major tool in achieving modal shift from car to other modes would be travel demand measures (TDM). These measures would increase the actual or perceived cost in travel by car to Lakeside, for example tolls, road charging, car parking charging, limiting the availability of car parking and congestion management. RS Policy ETG2 sets out the requirement for the introduction of a car parking charging and a management regime. This is further re-iterated in LDF CS Policy CST14. The applicant has not agreed to the policy requirement to impose parking charges as a TDM nor have they agreed to take part in a future management regime as part of the strategic management of Town Centre car parking stock. Part of the applicant’s case is that parking charging is not needed to achieve a commensurate level of modal shift with that envisaged within the RSS Single Issue Review. The supporting information from the Single Issue Review suggests that these TDM could give rise to a 5% modal shift across the northern Lakeside Basin as a whole.

There are advantages and disadvantages to rolling out parking charging in a piecemeal fashion, in particular the development of competing, conflicting or confusing charging systems. So if implemented it would be preferable if it were for the whole of Lakeside basin, with the agreement of other landowners. This brings into question the timescales and whether these TDM’s are likely to overtaken by a national road charging scheme. Therefore from practical point of view, the overriding issue in how and when the car parking charging policy is applied is the timing of its implementation.

It is clear that the applicant’s incentive measures will go some way to delivering the travel changes envisaged in Lakeside, in particular unlocking access between the public transport interchange and the rest of the retail parks. However at best it will deliver about half of what could be achieved if implemented in conjunction with parking PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

charging policy ETG2. In the current circumstances the applicant is unlikely to agree to the parking charging approach and consequently the opportunity afforded by the other transport incentives may be lost if the policy is rigidly applied at this time. In particular the application site is pivotal in allowing delivery of the incentive measures, by improving links between the Rail/Bus Station and the rest of the Retail Park. Without these linkages on the application site, any incentive measures envisaged within the wider area would be ineffective.

On the basis of the evidence available the incentive measures could deliver 3% - 4% modal shift and the TDM’s could deliver up to a further 5%, i.e. a total achievable of 8% - 9%. The latter of course requires the cooperation of the other landowners. On balance, the risk of losing the package of transport incentive measures to the wider basin, outweigh the benefits of the potential parking charging scheme. Nevertheless it is recommended that there is a phased approach to a future parking charging/management regime. The basic requirement at this time would be for the applicant to agree to a future parking management regime, which could, at some point, provide data for joined up Variable Message Systems, advising drivers of parking availability in respective areas and for congestion management. Parking charging as a TDM could then be considered when the next phase of development proposals comes forward. If you are mindful to recommend this application for approval, it is recommended that this additional obligation is secured as part of any permission.

5.24 Lakeside Basin Preliminary Infrastructure Report - Since the original consultation response, this infrastructure report has been published as part of the LDF work. The document identifies a range of transport infrastructure that would be require for the two Lakeside growth scenarios considered through the LDF modelling. This suggests there is the following transport infrastructure requirements*:

- Total Baseline 2011 = £3.65 million on local road network plus £109m - £409m on the Highways Agencies strategic highway network. (Junction 30 of the M25 and A13). - Total Strategic Spatial Framework Option 1 (1-15 years) = £23.69 million - Total Strategic Spatial Framework Option 2 (1-15 years) = £27.89 million

(*Note this excludes land acquisition and service diversions).

This list of infrastructure includes improvements to link roads, junctions, potential changes to the Lakeside road network, 3 bridges across the lake, green bridges across West Thurrock Way, provision of a hopper bus route etc. Setting aside the trunk road issue, an assessment is required as to whether the applicant’s infrastructure package makes an appropriately proportionate contribution to delivery of this infrastructure. The applicant has provided an estimate of the value of the transport benefits provided as part of the application, which suggests £15.4 million of embedded infrastructure and £2.7 million of Section 106 contributions. Some of these costs appear to be overestimated, in particular the embedded infrastructure costs include 20% for fees and contingencies, these are generally included in individual scheme cost estimates and it is unusual for them to be presented in this disaggregated manner, consequently they may be double counted. However even allowing for some overestimation, the transport benefits package does appear to be proportionate contribution towards the overall infrastructure requirements.

There are a number of junctions identified in the Infrastructure Report which will be directly affected by the additional development traffic and are not directly addressed as PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

part of the proposed infrastructure. There is the potential that a significant reduction in link car trips will arise as a result of the bridge across the lake and the northern bus link, so on this basis it is agreed that no direct mitigation is needed on these local junctions as part of this development.

5.25 Construction Traffic Movements - The Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) suggests the use of the Pilgrims Lane Coach Park as a Consolidation Site (CS) for construction storage etc. There are some acute traffic capacity problems on the Pilgrims Lane approach to the A1306 roundabout. The TA at Para 9.3.12 indicates that the impacts associated with construction workers is likely to be negligible. Notwithstanding the consented use of the site, it is unlikely that significant departures can be accommodated on Pilgrims Lane without some form of mitigation. The vehicle departure rate could of course be regulated to minimise impact at this location, alternatively there is an opportunity to slightly widen the south-bound approach to the A1306 roundabout, to improve capacity. Given the impact it relatively short-lived, the former would probably be a more reasonable solution. Deliveries should be via the Lakeside spiral access, rather than via Fenner Road. The applicant has agreed that these issues can be dealt with by a planning condition.

5.26 Essex and Suffolk Water: Essex & Suffolk Water have no objections to this planning application. Providing new water supplies to the proposed development poses no problem to us and does not require any phasing in its proposed timing. We assume the developer will discuss their requirements for water supply directly with us.

5.27 Specialist Landscape and Ecology Advisor: Landscape: The Visual and Townscape Analysis concludes that the proposed development would be visible from a limited number of viewpoints and that the impacts will not be significant due to it’s siting within the Basin which confines views of the site, and the fact that most people visit Lakeside primarily for the shopping centre at present. It does however highlight the importance of the need for a final scheme to ensure that the east elevation of plots LSC2 and LSC5 are suitably detailed and articulated, and that landscape/public realm proposals are implemented which enhance the character of this area and emphasise way-finding to the northern entrance.

It is necessary however to have regard to the overall policy of developing the Lakeside Basin as a town centre with some degree of residential in the future. It is vital therefore that there is a high quality landscape scheme that will enhance this important approach to the wider Basin.

The main landscape principles are included within the DAS. The overall principle set out on page 76 of the DAS of naturalistic planting on the boundaries leading to simple, structural planting closer to the buildings makes sense. There is however issues such as the impact of the new bus link along the northern bank of the lake which will reduce the overall area for natural planting compared to that indicated.

I would disagree with the statement that there is a considerable amount of existing landscaping. Much of the site comprises car parking with limited landscaping mainly confined to strips of tree and shrub planting around the perimeters of the site. The tree survey highlights that many of the existing trees are in a poor condition. It is disappointing therefore to see that the proposed scheme shows few opportunities to make major improvements to the landscape in this area. There still appears to be a PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

reliance on narrow bands of planting. While it is proposed to have greater degrees of planting in the northeast corner and to the east of the bus station the connection highlighted in the landscape section between the two again appears to be very limited with users being close to the busy roads.

The outline scheme shows the loss of an existing area of open space where the new bus station is proposed. While this appears not to be well used at present such spaces are considered important if properly incorporated into the overall layout of the site. The Square appears to be main open area illustrated, which it is assumed replaces the existing open space although there is no reference made to this. While it is accepted that the proposed public realm area could be of value for ‘externalising the shopping centre’ it is considered small at 28m x 43m given the overall scale and intensity of use of LSC, especially with its positioning close to an entrance point to the main building. I note the comparison to the square in Hammersmith but do not consider this to be fully comparable due to the limited alternatives within the area.

Similarly the public realm areas around the proposed bus station appear to be limited by the reconfigured surface car park and additional screening landscaping. There certainly does not appear to be adequate space for much of the elements shown in the precedent images on page 86.

The consideration that is being given to opening up very views to the lake along the south east bank would help raise awareness of visitors of its presence as currently it is effectively screened by trees and shrubs along the top of the banks. On its own however it is considered that it would provide significant benefit as this route is principally dominated by cars and car parking. While a new crossing point is shown no other steps are proposed which would increase the focus on the lake.

Overall it is agreed that the proposed development would not have a significant visual impact outside of the Lakeside Basin, and that the principles of the landscape scheme is supported. While some more significant landscaping is proposed on the east side of the site it is felt that overall the proposed landscape and public realm improvements are not sufficient to achieve the desired environmental improvements and provisions for increasing use of the external areas of the site.

5.28 Ecology - An ecology statement is included in the ES which assesses the ecological value of the site. It primarily consists of a desk based study with a Phase 1 habitat survey and some additional surveys for fauna such as birds and bats. No specific reptile survey was undertaken although some potential areas were checked. The site is not adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site or other site designated for its ecological value. The site is largely developed except for small amounts of formal landscaping. I therefore agree with the ecological assessment report that the site has limited ecological value.

5.29 Thurrock Council – Environmental Health: Air quality Operational - After reviewing the air quality assessment, I can see that the increased levels in traffic generated for the proposed extension of Lakeside Shopping Centre are not significant, and therefore the air quality impacts on the closest receptors according to the DMRB modelled

receptors is negligible in respects to nitrogen dioxide (NO2). With the worst receptors -3 numbers 2 & 4 only showing a 0.04 μgm increase in NO2, these receptors are also PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

well below the annual mean objective limit of 40 μgm-3. So I have no objections on the grounds of air quality.

Air quality Construction - With reference to construction related emissions in the air quality statement Chapter E (Hilson Moran December 2011) sections E5.0 to E5.21 deals with the potential effects of construction related emissions. I am in general agreement with the conclusions in these sections.

Given the location the receptors most likely to be affected will be the existing development and customers at the shopping centre. Existing residential developments are sufficiently distant from the site not to be significantly affected

The mitigation measures proposed in sections E6.0 to E6.5 are in my opinion sufficient to control dust and other particulate emissions during the construction phase. These measures should be incorporated into the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) referred to in section E6.1 of the statement.

5.30 Contaminated land - Chapter H (Hilson Moran December 2011) deals with ground conditions and contaminated land. Having reviewed the contents I am in general agreement with the conclusions of the report. The report indicate that there are elevated ground gas concentrations existing within the proposed development site.(section H6.21) and states that:

“The proposed Development Site will be subject to further investigation to better establish the nature of Made Ground conditions and it ground gassing characterisation. It is possible that unexpected ground conditions may be encountered.”

Further detailed comment can be made on receipt of the investigation results. Provision should be made in the CEMP to deal with any areas of unforeseen contamination that may be encountered during construction.

The report recommends mitigation measures during construction to deal with contamination issues (sections H6.2 to H.6 14). These measures should be adopted during construction and included in the CEMP. The report also recommends gas protection measures post construction for the development (section H6.to H617) and states in H6.17:

“Mitigation measures would be incorporated in the building design as necessary and in agreement with the Thurrock Council Environmental Health and Building Control departments.”

The proposed measures for gas protection must be submitted for approval prior to construction commencing.

5.31 Noise operational - I have examined Chapter F Noise dated December 2011 by Hilson Moran. The noise chapter considers noise from construction and operational impacts, the latter including the uplift in road traffic associated with the development. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

A noise survey has been undertaken to establish the prevailing ambient and background noise levels both at the site, and at the nearest noise sensitive receptors. The calculations for the increase in noise due to the uplift in road traffic are verified, and I can

confirm that the impact will be negligible, with a maximum increase in the LA10,18hour of 0.3 dB. The predicted noise levels due to the phasing of the construction activities appear to be reasonable given the uncertainties of an outline application. However, the method of piling is not explicitly stated. The figure quoted for the piling noise activity is 78 dBA at 10 metres. This would be an appropriate level for a “Crane mounted auger” (BS5228: 2009 Table C.3 79dBA@10m). If driven piling is later substituted as a method, this would give rise to higher levels and may require specific restriction on operating times (C Pomphrett also deals with this below). The developer may also apply for a Control of Pollution Act 1974 Section 61 prior authorisation to control construction noise.

Plant noise is addressed as far as possible at this stage. From the submitted plans and sections it can be seen that proposed unit denoted LSC2 is at closest 261 metres from the residents in Nightingdale Court off Fleming Road. These are four storey apartments at +15m AOD Since the plant is at a maximum elevation of +23.25m AOD the upper bedrooms will be on a similar level, potentially reducing the attenuation afforded by intervening bund (10 dB attenuation is assumed in the calculations).

Since the proposed development will be occupied by more than one tenant, and the specific items of plant are currently unknown, the report proposes to mitigate plant noise at the nearest noise sensitive receptors with reference to design target noise limits as detailed in table F12 page 23 of the report. To achieve this, it is further proposed that individual tenants will have specific emission limits set so that in combination the overall noise from the development plant can meet the target.

I would recommend a condition that the developer submit a scheme of soundproofing for roof mounted plant and machinery, including the individual emission limits proposed for each tenant, to be approved by the LPA prior to the first occupation of the units.

Overall the conclusions of the report are accepted and, subject to appropriate conditions, there is no reason why noise should be an issue for the development.

5.32 Noise construction - Chapter F of the environmental statement (Hilson Moran December 2011) deals with noise from the construction phase (sections F5.1 to F5.15). I am in general agreement with the conclusions in these sections. The mitigation measures proposed in sections F6.1 to F6.4 are sufficient to control noise form the construction phase. These measures should be incorporated into the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) referred to in section F6.4 of the statement. The proposed hours of work as referred to in section F6.2 are acceptable.

I note that in the ground conditions section (Chapter H) the Environment Agency will be consulted regarding the piling methods to be adopted I would require details of the piling to be submitted as if driven piling is the proposed method the hours of piling activity should be agreed prior to piling works commencing. If driven impact piling is not the preferred method then the hours of work as proposed in the noise assessment would be acceptable. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

5.33 Construction/demolition - The development will require a waste management plan (WMP). The document (Lakeside North Mall Development Strategy for recycling of demolition and other waste materials arising from the works provides a basis for the WMP at the outline stage. The document states:

“The following table is our Site Waste Management Plan for the Lakeside North Mall project. Company details will be added as they are appointed.”

These details and the finalised WMP should be submitted and approved prior to construction commencing at the detail stage.

I note the main construction compound will be sited on the coach park if required care should be taken with the siting of any security lighting to prevent glare and overspill of light affecting sensitive receptors.

5.34 Thurrock Council – Tree Officer: There are no real tree implications to consider with regards to existing trees in this proposal as the trees that would be removed could easily be replaced within a new landscaping scheme. In the interest of sustainability, a new landscaping scheme should at a very minimum replace as much tree cover as would be removed but ideally should incorporate further canopy cover with the inclusion of large canopy trees strategically located in such positions to not create management issues in the long term with regards to leaf debris and sap exudations on vehicles. The remaining new tree stock should reflect the species currently on site, as these have proven to have successfully established themselves in the current environment

5.35 Thurrock Council – Travel Plan Co-ordinator: Lakeside Shopping Centre already has a Travel Plan that has been recently revised. I am happy to support this application with the current Travel Plan in force.

5.36 Thurrock Council – Landscape: This application for development on Lakeside Shopping Centre (LSC) site is considered against the policies within the Thurrock Local Development Framework (LDF) which include the following:

 CSTP 18 - Green Infrastructure  CSTP 20 - Open Space  CSTP 22 - Thurrock Design  CSTP 23 - Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness  PMD 2 - Design and Layout  PMD 5 - Open Spaces  PMD 7 - Biodiversity, Geological  PMD 16 - Developer Contributions

It is considered that the proposed application does not address the concerns raised regarding the delivery of a safe, healthy, assessable and inclusive environment, where high quality design leads development and open space.

It is considered that the proposals within this application do not address the constraints and opportunities of the site which have been discussed with the applicant over the previous year as part of consultation for the Lakeside Town Centre DPD and pre application discussion regarding potential extensions of retail at LSC. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

5.37 Key Issues - Green Infrastructure - Green Infrastructure (GI) considers the natural features and processes of the site in terms of their quality, value and benefits they can provide.

The LSC site is dominated by buildings and hard surfaces and makes little use of significant green assets of the lake and the cliff edge. Further examples of the benefits of Green Infrastructure which are relevant to the site are presented in Appendix 1.

5.38 Assessment the proposal in terms of GI - It is considered that the proposals replicate the current poor adoption of GI values and benefits and does not safeguard or enhance the quality of green assets. There are opportunities to improve the local microclimate including, air quality, wind turbulence and shading, which have not been addressed. The visual assets of the lake and the opportunities for recreation and biodiversity enhancement have not been addressed.

The proposals regarding surface water management, and renewable energy are not considered to have fully utilised the site opportunities.

5.39 Land use - The site is predominantly arranged under single land uses with extensive areas used as surface car parking. It should be noted that the most eastern surface car park and the north eastern multi-storey car park are closed for the majority of the year.

The current layout of the retail units, the multi-storey car parks and service parking creates a linear internal public realm without reference to the setting of the LSC and the wider Lakeside Basin. The diversification of retail and leisure to the lake side, at the Boardwalk, has been successful but it is understood that this breakout from the linear mall pattern has taken time to establish.

5.40 Assessment of proposed land use - The extension northwards (LSC1), which replace the current bus station, replicates the current retail experience without addressing the issues of permeability across the site, which is considered further in the section below. This extension northwards does not deliver active frontages and meaningful open space which could contribute to improving the quality of the public realm.

The relocation of the bus terminal and adjacent retail extensions, to the south east, results in the removal of the only meaningful but underutilise public open space. This open space is identified in the Greengrid Infrastructure Plan for Thurrock as hub to Local Green Links which extending east wards and southwards.

The proposed development of the north-east and south-east entrances, reinforce the east facing frontage of the mall as a key arrival point. It is considered that small pockets of decorative planting, adjacent to the pedestrian circulation space of each entrance does not provide an adequate public realm. The character of this eastern frontage area remains dominated by vehicles and the blank facade of the mall.

5.41 Permeability - The LSC site is identified in the Greengrid Strategy as a key gateway, providing Potential Local Green links between public transport, footpaths and residential communities in the east, to visitors and working communities in the wider Lakeside Basin and Alexandra Lake. The site also forms part of a Proposed Strategic Greenlink, which PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

runs North South incorporating Alexandra Lake. However there are both manmade and natural barriers to movement, both across and within the LSC site.

The setting of the LSC site within the lakeside basin is bound to the North and East by main roads and a railway line, and to the South by the main distributor road for the Lakeside Basin. Landscape features also constrains access to the LSC site with cliff edges to the North and East and Alexandra Lake to the west. Current accesses for pedestrians into the LSC site, which do not require crossing of main roads, are as follows:

• Eastern pedestrian access is provided via the pedestrian bridge from Chafford Hundred Railway Station (CHRS). This gives access to a small pocket park and the south-east and main eastern entrances of the mall. It should be noted this access still requires the use of steps and lifts and is locked by agreement of both LSC and CHRS. A public footpath runs adjacent to the bridge but access is not provided.

• Western pedestrian access is provided via the northern pavement of West Thurrock Way. This gives access to a narrow path extending along the Alexandra Lake. This route joins the Broadwalk, via a gate, and then extends around the rear of the cinema building. This route then joins a rough path set in low value amenity open space which then extends around the north of the lake and terminates on the west bank at the fenced boundary of Lakeside Property Development Limited site. A low quality and restricted access leads into the Tesco’s car park.

• Northern pedestrian access is limited to bus passengers who can access the north- west entrance of the mall along the route of a service road.

The general arrangement of buildings, vehicle movement and site levels on LSC site results in the further barriers to pedestrian movement across the site.

The main mall buildings align north to south is surrounded by service roads. East-west access is through the mall building and requires a drop in level from first floor on the east and ground floor to the west. The central east and west entrances have level access from surface car parks, however other entrances require bridges and road crossings to link to car parks which sit outside the ring of service roads. The multi-storey car parks and visitor vehicle access then forms a second tier of barriers to pedestrian movement through the site.

This layout relies on the internal mall space to form access across the site and generates a successful movement pattern for mall shopping. However the need for alternative access is evident by the number of desire lines running across the LSC site. These routes rely on pedestrians using services roads, multi-storey car parks and passing along very narrow strips between roads and buildings at blind corners. The most notable routes pass to the south and south-west and cross multiple lanes of carriageways, which is described in more detail below.

Cycle access to the site relies on shared surface pavements to the LSC boundary and use of internal visitor roads to reach the main east and west entrances to the mall. To cross east-west or east-south across the Lakeside Basin, from Fenner Road to West Thurrock Way, a cyclists would need to follow the internal road around the northern PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

extent of the site. What is more likely is that cyclists would attempt use the south-west desire line. This uses service and visitor roads and is approximately 1/8 the distance of the longer route. This route would require the cyclist to cross the five carriage ways of the southern entrance from West Thurrock Way followed by a further three carriage ways of internal service and visitor access roads. Each of these sets of carriage ways are laid out in a series of tight bends which limit visibility. This route would also cross two car park entrances which are made more complex by a change in levels and traffic barriers.

5.42 Assessment of the proposals permeability - The proposals include pedestrian areas and shop fronts at the south-east and north-east mall entrances, this increases external circulation and active frontages at these points. However it is considered that these areas are not sufficiently linked to the wider circulation of the site and do not address the character or safety of pedestrian and cycle routes across the site.

The proposed location of the Bus Station increases the numbers for cyclists and pedestrians attempting to navigate the south-east corner of the site. The proposal for a footpath to extend around the south-east car parks, replicating the current desire line, is not considered to provide appropriate pedestrian and cycle access.

The relocation of the bus station to the south-east entrance of the mall and access point to the pedestrian bridge, which leads to the railway station, provides an opportunity to create a Transport Interchange. For this proposal to contribute to Sustainable Transport and the Greengird network of Green Links, this interchange must serve the wider community and support access to public transport, open space, and places of work. It should be noted that the Mobility Centre should also be relocated to the Transport Interchange.

Alexandra Lake provides a key opportunity for a high quality setting for both recreation and commercial land uses and forms part of a Strategic Green Link. It is considered that the proposals do not sufficiently improve both visual and physical connections to the lake. The main point of pedestrian access to the lake is via the Boardwalk from the mall. Alternative access is generally of poor quality, offer low amenity value with a hostile character and still require crossing roads and car parks to make links to the wider site.

5.43 Recommendations - The land uses of the eastern frontage of the mall could be laid out to achieve a more efficient use of space and transform the character of the shopping mall. Consideration should be given to giving over the surface car parks flanking the eastern facade to an active frontage set in high quality open space. This would deliver both Greengrid and Green Infrastructure benefits and bring the most eastern car park into more general use.

Alternatively development of the western mall frontage would support the Boardwalk facilities, and make better use of Alexandra Lake’s asset. Considered should be given to replacing the western surface car park with shop frontages to face on to amenity green space leading to the lakes edge. This would also bring the north-west multi-story car park into more general use.

Consideration should be given to providing an appropriate pedestrian and cycle route linking east-west and east-south through the site. An elevated shared pedestrian and cycle access from the south-east arrival point of the footbridge and south east mall PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

entrance could be extended to meet a ramped connection with the northern pavement of West Thurrock Way and southern extent Alexandra Lake. Preferably this route passes between buildings set above the service road. The access along southern extent of Alexander Lake can be widened to provide suitable amenity and recreation opportunities whilst maintaining landscape biodiversity values by extension of a boardwalk or closing of vehicle carriageway. The northern extent of Alexander Lake can be enhanced to provide better linkages to the western frontage of the mall and links into the various retail areas of the western bank of the lake. These access links should met high standard of design to ensure they are perceived as a safe, convenient and provide an attractive alternative to using dangerous desire lines and discourage using cars to access the wider Lakeside Basin.

Further consideration should be given to connecting public footpath PRoW 16 to public transport, open space. This may be achieved by enabling access to the footbridge which links to Chafford Hundred Railway Station.

Greengrid and Green Infrastructure benefits can be derived by more efficient use land, improved links for both people and habitats. The protection and enhancement of green assets across the LSC site would bring both improvements to the public realm, production from renewable energy and assist to mitigate the hostile microclimate of the Lakeside Basin.

5.44 Anglian Water: Section 1 – Assets Affected: Our records show that there are no assets owned by Anglian Water or those subject to an adoption agreement within the development site boundary.

Section 2 – Wastewater Treatment - The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Tilbury STW that at present has available capacity for these flows.

Section 3 – Foul Sewerage Network - Development will lead to an unacceptable risk of flooding downstream. A drainage strategy will need to be prepared in consultation with Anglian Water to determine mitigation measures. We request a condition requiring the drainage strategy covering the issue(s) to be agreed.

Section 4 – Surface Water Disposal - The preferred method of surface water disposal would be to a sustainable drainage system (SUDS) with connection to sewer seen as the last option. Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk emphasises the role of SUDS and introduces a presumption that they will be used in all developments.

Building Regulations on Drainage and Waste Disposal for England includes a surface water drainage hierarchy, with infiltration on site as the preferred disposal option, followed by discharge to watercourse and then connection to a sewer.

No flood risk assessment was submitted with the planning application. We would therefore recommend that the applicant needs to consult with Anglian Water and the Environment Agency. We request a condition requiring a drainage strategy covering the issue(s) to be agreed.

Anglian Water has suggested informatives and planning conditions in the event that planning permission is granted. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

5.45 Essex Police (Architectural Liaison Officer): ‘Essex police do not object but would seek a condition on all new build for SBD and Park Mark certification. The developer to maintain consultation with Essex Police ALO service and CTSA`s to reduce the possibilities for crime and anti-social behaviour’.

Essex Police forwarded supplementary comment (19.01.2012) – ‘The increased impact on policing the lakeside development as it grows must be addressed and this is best done at the consultation and construction stages rather than trying to implement any expensive and intrusive additional security and safety measures at a later stage. Millions of people visit this site each year and hundreds of reported and un-reported crimes occur. We accept that compared with the foot fall and vehicle movements Lakeside is a safe and non threatening environment. In order that this balance remains we would request the following planning conditions are implemented. 1) Secured by Design certification is required on all new retail and business units along with the reconstruction of the new main entrance way. 2) The Safer Parking Award that is at present achieved on all car parks at the Lakeside Shopping Centre is achieved on any new car parks. 3) The new bus terminus achieves SBD certification 4) Facilities remain or are installed to facilitate Essex Police personnel to work from whilst on duty (to include toilet/washing, report writing and rest facilities, a secure cycle parking rack or bar).

These conditions will both reduce the opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour at the Shopping Centre but also deter those intent on crime whilst reducing the fear of crime and its negative carbon footprint thus benefiting all who visit or work at Lakeside’.

5.46 Network Rail: No observations

5.47 Other: At the time of drafting this report no response has been received from the following parties consulted;

 Kent County Council  Aveley Village Community Forum  Purfleet Village Community Forum  South Ockendon Community Forum  West Thurrock & South Stifford Community Forum  Gravesham Borough Council  SUSTRANS  Basildon District Council  Castle Point Borough Council  Essex County Council  Brentwood Borough Council  Southend-on-Sea Borough Council  Chelmsford Borough Council  Rochford District Council  London Borough of Bexley  Essex County Fire and Rescue Service  Thurrock Council – Waste Strategy  National Grid Property Ltd PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

6.0 PUBLICITY

The application has been advertised, site notices displayed and neighbours notified. At the time of drafting this report one letter of representation has been received. The letter refers to comments made by Thurrock Council’s Highway Information & Public Rights of Way Officer regarding the current lack of access to the Lakeside Bridge from Public Right of Way Footpath no.16 which follows the line of the railway. The letter adds that the existing bridge has an emergency door leading onto the footpath. It seeks the creation of a public access from the bridge to the Public Right of Way as part of the application.

7.0 POLICY CONTEXT

7.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - The NPPF was published on the 27 March 2012. The policies in the Framework apply from the day of publication. The NPPF largely carries forward many planning policies and protections, albeit in a significantly more streamlined form and makes adjustments to some specific policies. The policy documents listed at Annex 3 of the Framework including many existing Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPG’s) and Planning Policy Statements (PPS’s) are cancelled.

7.1.1 Paragraph 13 of the Framework sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 196 of the Framework confirms the tests in s.8(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and s70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

7.1.2 Annex 1 makes clear that Development Plan policies should not be considered out-of- date simply because they were adopted prior to publication of the Framework. It also sets out how decision-takers should proceed taking account of the date of adoption of the relevant policy and the consistency of the policy with the Framework. For 12 months from the day of publication of the NPPF, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies in development plan documents adopted in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework (Annex ‘A’ paragraph 4 for further advice). In other cases and following this 12-month period, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

7.1.3 With regards to this proposal the following sections are particularly relevant

1. Building a strong, competitive economy

2. Ensuring the vitality of town centres

4. Promoting sustainable transport PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

7. Requiring good design

8. Promoting healthy communities

10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change

11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

7.2 Regional Planning Policy - On the 10th November 2010 the High Court found that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had acted unlawfully in unilaterally revoking the system of Regional Spatial Strategies in England in July 2010. The judgment effectively reinstated the East of England Plan until the Localism Bill is enacted. The Localism Bill received Royal Ascent on the 15th November 2011. Section 109 contains this provision and gives the Secretary of State power to revoke in whole or part any Regional Strategy. The Regional Strategies remain in place until the Secretary of State makes an Order to revoke.

7.2.1 Whilst it remains the Government’s intention to revoke the RSS, at the time of considering this application, it remains part of the Development Plan. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that “where in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, and the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicates otherwise’. The following East of England Plan policies are relevant;  SS1: Achieving Sustainable Development  SS2: Overall Spatial Strategy  SS3: Key Centres for Development and Change  SS5: Priority Areas for Regeneration  T1: Regional Transport Strategy Objectives and Outcomes - sets out the strategy objectives and desired outcomes. The objects comprise; o to manage travel behaviour and the demand for transport to reduce the rate of road traffic growth and ensure the transport sector makes an appropriate contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions; o to encourage efficient use of existing transport infrastructure; o to enable the provision of the infrastructure and transport services necessary to support existing communities and development proposed in the spatial strategy; o to improve access to jobs, services and leisure facilities.  T2: Changing Travel Behaviour - seeks local authorities and other bodies to implement policies to bring about a significant change in travel behaviour, a reduction in distances travelled and a shift towards greater use of sustainable modes.  T4: Urban Transport - seeks relevant plans and strategies to bring about a shift away from car use to public transport, walking and cycling. It goes onto identify a number of measures including; o ensuring urban extensions and other major developments are linked from the outset into the existing urban structure through safe, well PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

designed pedestrian and cycling routes and a high standard of public transport; o capitalising on opportunities provided by new development to achieve area wide improvements in public transport services, footpaths and cycle networks; o promoting public transport through quality partnerships or other agreements to deliver enhanced services, improved interchange, increased access, higher levels of public visibility, better travel information, and appropriate traffic management measures; and o improvements to local networks for walking and cycling, including increasing the attractiveness and safety of the public realm.  T8: Local Roads – states that Local Authorities should manage the local road network in accordance with their local transport plan objectives to complement the aims of Policies T2 to T7 with the following priorities: o tackling congestion and its environmental impacts; o facilitating the provision of safe and efficient public transport, walking and cycling; o providing efficient vehicular access to locations and activities requiring it, particularly in areas of growth and where regeneration is dependent on improved access; and o improving safety.  T9: Walking, Cycling and other Non-Motorised Transport  T13: Public Transport Accessibility  ENV1: Green Infrastructure  ENV3: Biodiversity and Earth Heritage  ENV7: Quality in the Built Environment  ENG1: Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Energy Performance  WAT4: Flood Risk Management  WM6: Waste Management in Developments  ETG2: Thurrock Key Centre for Development and Change (as revised)  ETG5: Essex and Thames Gateway Employment Generating Development  E5: Regional Structure of Town Centres (as revised)  ETG6: Transport Infrastructure

7.3 East of England Plan – Single Issue Review - In May 2008 the East of England Plan was published. Policy ETG2 ‘Thurrock Key Centre for Development and Change’ required the East of England Assembly (EERA) to undertake an immediate Single Issue Review (SIR). The purpose of the review is to prepare a robust strategic planning framework to guide the regeneration and redevelopment of the Lakeside Basin, a key economic driver within the Thames Gateway South Essex sub-region.

7.3.1 In September 2008 EERA commissioned GVA Grimley Ltd to undertake a study into the potential for, and impacts of, growth within the Lakeside Basin. GVA Grimley was tasked with testing the growth and diversification of all uses within the Basin, with MVA testing transport implications of growth and Environ completing an independent Integrated Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) of the growth options and final recommendations. The Study undertook the testing of three growth scenarios to establish the potential for PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

growth within the Basin and the impact this would have on the regeneration of Thurrock and other centres within the Thames Gateway and Essex. Each scenario was tested for their impacts on transport, sustainability, employment, skills, regeneration and housing supply. In summary the retail impact assessment undertaken as part of the study concluded; ‘We consider the impact of a scheme of circa 50,000 sq m net of higher order shopping type floor space would be likely to be broadly acceptable by 2016, and not lead to any significant adverse impact on neighbouring centres’ (Para 4.69, p55).

7.3.2 An Examination in Public into the Single Issue Review was undertaken in July 2009. The Secretary of State’s agreed the revision to ETG2 and E5 on the 29th January 2010.

7.3.3 The revised RSS Policy E5 detailed below makes the northern part of the Lakeside Basin a Regional Centre and forms part of the ‘regional structure of town centres’ defined in Policy E5. The accompanying text (para 4.21) states ‘Policy ETG2 provides the strategic policy framework governing the approach to the areas future development as a town centre’.

‘POLICY E5 – Regional Structure of Town Centres

The cities and towns of strategic importance for retail and other town centre purposes are: • Regional centres: Basildon, Cambridge, Chelmsford, Colchester, Ipswich, Norwich, Peterborough, Southend, Thurrock Lakeside, Watford; and • Major town centres: Bedford, Bury St Edmunds, Great Yarmouth, Harlow, Hemel Hempstead, King’s Lynn, Lowestoft, Luton, St Albans, Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City.

Major new retail development and complementary town centre uses should primarily be located in the above centres and be consistent in scale with the size and character of the centre and its role in the regional structure. Development plan documents should only propose higher order provision where need is clearly established and the development would: •result in a more sustainable pattern of development and movement, including a reduction in the need to travel; and • have no significant harmful impact on other centres or the transport network. Any new regional centres are subject to similar considerations and should only be brought forward through a review of this RSS.

Below the level of the centres of regional strategic importance local development documents will identify a network of more local town centres, district centres, neighbourhood centres and village centres.

7.3.4 Policy ETG2 (Thurrock Key Area for Development and Change) detailed below makes a regional decision that the northern part of the Lakeside Basin will be transformed into a town centre, subject to the attainment of a series of pre-conditions. Part 2 of the Policy requires the preparation of an appropriate Local Development Document (LDD) to guide PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

regeneration and remodelling of the wider Lakeside Basin and states eight points that it should addressed. Part 3 of the Policy states that the attainment of ‘Regional Centre Status’ is conditional upon the LDD providing the seven points specified. Part 4 of the Policy limits expansion of the new Regional Centre to 50,000m2 of net comparison floorspace to reflect the Boroughs population growth. Part 4 of the Policy states ‘No retail expansion should be approved until the adoption of the appropriate Local Development Documents and the imposition of appropriate conditions and obligations to secure the objectives of paragraphs (2) and (3)’.

ETG2 – Thurrock Key Area for Development and Change

(1) The Thurrock Urban Area (from Purfleet in the west to Tilbury/Chadwell St. Mary in the east) is a Key Centre for Development and Change, with the northern part of Lakeside Basin defined as a Regional Centre in terms of Policy E5. Local Development Documents should: • promote an urban renaissance, re-using previously developed land and making the best use of the Thames riverside to bring about substantial improvement in the quality of the urban environment; • upgrade the image of the area as a leading centre for logistics, and enhance the scale and sustainability of its role in that respect, while also seeking to diversify the employment base; • safeguard wharves and quays necessary for the strategic functioning of the Port of London; • secure the transformation of the northern part of Lakeside Basin as a town centre conditional upon the measures set out in (2), (3) and (4) below; and • develop complementary policies for the regeneration of Grays town centre and other urban centres in the Borough.

(2) Local Development Documents should guide the regeneration and remodelling of the wider Lakeside Basin and West Thurrock area on sustainable mixed use lines by: i) defining the boundary of the area; ii) providing for a broader employment base through the identification of key strategic employment sites; iii) promoting a high quality built environment and public realm that is more coherent, legible and integrated; iv) protecting and enhancing green infrastructure including the provision of further accessible natural green space to meet local standards; v) promoting a greater mix of uses, including additional residential, office, hotel, and assembly and leisure activities; vi) improving the range of services and facilities; vii) securing more sustainable movement patterns, reduced private motor vehicle dependence and complementary travel demand management measures including an area-wide travel plan; viii) improving local accessibility and connectivity by public transport and pedestrian and cyclist permeability throughout the area including consideration of ways to reconnect the north and the south of the area, a new high frequency service rail station in the south, and a personal rapid transport system; and PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

ix) providing the necessary improvements to the local and strategic road network.

(3) The attainment of Regional Centre status for the northern part of Lakeside Basin is conditional upon the adoption of Local Development Documents providing for: i) a town centre boundary, with a designated primary shopping area; ii) a greater mix of uses and services including a significant increase in housing and office accommodation and the provision of convenience retail floorspace; iii) an indicative scale of floorspace for each major town centre use; iv) indicative thresholds for new retail floorspace, phased with required infrastructure; v) design and public realm enhancements; vi) improved accessibility for pedestrians and by non-car modes, including the introduction of a car parking charging and management regime; and vii) an implementation plan.

(4) Retail expansion at the new Regional Centre should be limited to 50,000 m2 of net comparison floorspace by 2019 together with an appropriate amount of convenience floorspace to reflect the Borough’s population growth. No retail expansion should be approved until the adoption of the appropriate Local Development Documents and the imposition of appropriate conditions and obligations to secure the objectives of paragraphs (2) and (3). Any further strategic retail development beyond the initial 50,000 m2 net of comparison retail floorspace at the new Lakeside Regional Centre should be considered through future RSS reviews.

Local Planning Policy

7.4 Thurrock Local Plan 1997 - The Local Plan was adopted in 1997 and covered the plan period up to 2001. Although the lifetime of the plan has now expired certain saved policies remain part of the Development Plan. Appendix 7 (pp A36 - A39) of the Pre- Submission Core Strategy sets out how the Local Plan policies will be replaced by policies in the various LDF documents. Most of the saved Local Plan Polices were replaced by the new policies in the LDF Core Strategy. Whilst there are a number that will only be replaced once the Sites DPD or Minerals and Waste DPD is adopted they are not relevant to this application. In the Local Plan the site forms part of the ‘Lakeside Retail Zone’. Policies relevant to this allocation have either not been saved (SH2) or are replaced (SH1 and LR3).

7.5 Thurrock Local Development Framework (LDF) – The LDF Core Strategy was adopted at Full Council on the 21st December 2011. Part of the Spatial Vision for 2026 is that;

‘Lakeside will be transformed into a Regional Centre (town centre) providing a range of retail, leisure, employment, housing and new transport facilities’ (Para 3.10, p27). Para 3.11 goes on to state; ‘The Council and its regeneration partners will prioritise PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

efforts to bring about the transformation of Lakeside into a Regional Centre and in doing so, will create an image, re-shape perceptions and consequently encourage and drive forward inward investment. The level of investment in Lakeside by both private and public sectors will create confidence throughout the Borough’.

7.5.1 The LDF identifies ‘Lakeside and West Thurrock’ as a ‘Key Areas of Regeneration and Growth’ (para 3.19, p28). Para 3.24-26 go onto describe the Spatial Vision for this area in more detail;

‘3.24 The great majority of new housing, employment and associated development in the Borough will be located in the Lakeside/West Thurrock Regeneration Area. A mix of 3,300 new dwellings will be located to the south and east of Lakeside; new Neighbourhood Areas will be developed at West Thurrock and South Stifford including community and health facilities, primary schools and shopping facilities.

3.25 The Lakeside Basin will be transformed into a Regional Centre (town centre), and, together with the wider area, will provide between 7,000 and 9,000 jobs. Development will include a substantial expansion of retail floorspace (50,000 sqm net of comparison floorspace) to serve sub-regional needs and additional convenience and service retail, office and leisure floorspace to broaden the mix of uses. There will be an additional 3,000 dwellings, improved open space, and more community and health facilities.

3.26 The transport network will be redesigned and improved including East facing slip roads to Lakeside Shopping Centre from the A13, a relocated bus station and environmental improvements surrounding the Shopping Centre, including road and parking alterations.

3.27 The Plan proposes the provision of a new railway station at West Thurrock, introduces the South Essex Rapid Transit and will ensure pedestrian access will be improved, including north-south access from the river through Lakeside and West Thurrock to the Green Belt and beyond to Ockendon.

3.28 There will be improved public access to and along the riverfront at Wouldham Works and West Thurrock. New urban open spaces will be incorporated, as part of the Greengrid network’.

7.5.2 Regarding the relevant Core Strategic Spatial Policies;

 CSSP2 ‘Sustainable Employment Growth’ - Identifies Lakeside Basin / West Thurrock as one of five key economic clusters and provides an indicate job growth target of 7,000 to 9,000 of the 26,000 new jobs target for Thurrock over the period 2001 to 2026 (p46). Policy CSTP2 states; ‘Other Local Development Documents will identify proposals to bring forward the diversification and redevelopment of the Lakeside Basin. This will include the assessment of new sites and the intensification of existing sites to provide increased employment from industry and commercial, mixed use and retail and leisure sites’ (p41).

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

7.5.3 Table 15 (p243) provides the details of the Implementation Framework for all the Core Strategy Policies. With regards Policy CSSP2 it states ‘To be delivered by the determination of planning applications and the Site Specific Allocations DPD. Intervention by delivery agencies and partner organisations’.

 CSSP3 ‘Sustainable Infrastructure’ - Identifies a number of ‘Key Strategic Infrastructure Projects’ it judges as essential to the delivery of the Core Strategy. Under the Heading ‘Transport and Access’ subheading ‘road’ it identifies two projects namely; o ‘Lakeside Expansion and Diversification Transport Package’ and o ‘South East Rapid Transit extending into Thurrock to Lakeside’ (p49).

 CSSP5 ‘Sustainable Greengrid’ - seeks to deliver the Green Grid Strategy. Part 2 of the Policy states that ‘The Greengrid will be delivered at a spatial level through a series of 8 Greengrid Improvement Zones’ one of which is ‘(iii) West Thurrock/Lakeside/Chafford’.

7.5.4 Regarding the relevant draft thematic policies;

 CSTP6 ‘Strategic Employment Provision’ - Seeks to focus employment provision on the Key Strategic Economic Hubs, identified in Policy CSSP2 which includes ‘Lakeside Basin / West Thurrock’. With regards Office Development, part 6 of the policy states that the Council intend to ‘review locations for office development as part of the Development Plan Documents on Lakeside’. Section 7 of the policy relates to ‘Knowledge and Cultural Based Regeneration’ and adopts a similar approach for ‘knowledge based, cultural, retail, leisure and office developments’ in Lakeside (p94). Table 15 provides the details of the Implementation Framework for all the Core Strategy Policies. With regards CSTP6 it states ‘To be delivered through the determination of planning applications, Lakeside Implementation and Delivery SPD and the Site Specific Allocation DPD’ (p244).

 CSTP7 ‘Network of Centres’ - The forward states; ‘The transformation of Lakeside into a new regional (town) centre and the enhancement of existing centres are vital for sustainable development ensuring the provision of local accessible services and employment opportunities for the borough’s residents’ (p91). Part one of the Policy States;

‘New Lakeside Regional Centre: The Council supports the transformation of the Lakeside Basin into a new regional centre. This will be achieved in policy through the Local Development Documents. Expansion at the new Lakeside regional centre will include the following: (i) Up to 50,000 sqm of net comparison floorspace (by 2019); (ii) At least 4,000 sqm of net convenience floorspace; (iii) Up to 3,000 new dwellings; subject to review and the Site Specific Allocations DPD. (iv) Employment and other services floorspace to broaden the employment base; (v) Commercial leisure floorspace, including food and drink uses, consistent with the function of a regional centre’ (p97). PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

7.5.5 Table 15 provides the details of the Implementation Framework for all the Core Strategy Policies. With regards CSTP7 it states ‘To be set out in the Local Development Document’ (p245).

 CSTP9 – Well being: Leisure and Sports - seeks the ‘provision of high quality sports and leisure facilities and appropriate spaces for those that live, work, and visit the borough’. With regards new and existing facilities, part 1 (iii) states ‘Promote smaller-scale sports and leisure facilities in town centres, local centres and Lakeside Regional centre’ (p98). Part 2 relates to ‘key sites’ and identifies that flagship sites for leisure and sports facilities for Lakeside will be identified and set out in the relevant Development Plan Documents. Table 15 provides the details of the Implementation Framework for all the Core Strategy Policies. With regards ‘Leisure within the Lakeside Regional Centre’ it states ‘To be set out in the Local Development Document’ (p246).

 CTSP10 – Community facilities – The stated aim of this Policy is to provide community facilities. Part 3 of the Policy relates to ‘key projects’ and states that ‘The Council will work with relevant partners to deliver the following projects’ which includes ‘(vii) Community facilities identified for Lakeside and set out in the relevant Development Plan Documents’.

 CSTP14 ‘Transport in the Thurrock Urban Area: Purfleet to Tilbury’ - This policy seeks to deliver at least a 10% reduction in car traffic from the 2026 levels that have been forecast. Part 1 of this Policy sets out a number of measures to achieve this. Criteria (i), (iv), (vi) and (vii) make specific reference to Lakeside; ‘(i) Phase the delivery of a network of walking and cycling core routes, with priority in growth areas. These will be supported by widespread provision of good quality cycle parking facilities. The core routes will improve access to education, healthcare, transport interchanges, employment, sports facilities, the riverside, Grays town centre, and Lakeside Regional Shopping Centre. (IV). Improve public transport infrastructure in the Thurrock Urban Area through the phased delivery of the South Essex Rapid Transit (SERT) and other inter-urban public transport and bus priority, allowing fast and reliable services to the new Community Hospital and Learning Campus at Grays, Lakeside Regional Shopping Centre, and employment opportunities. (VI). Employ Smarter Choices* measures to change travel behaviour to achieve a reduction in forecast traffic and help to deliver better air quality and a better environment for job creation. Priority areas for Smarter Choices programmes include Grays and Lakeside. (VII).Identify priority areas such as Grays town centre and Lakeside Basin, for network efficiency improvement measures to address congestion and air quality issues. Other Air Quality Management Areas as well as growth / regeneration areas will undergo transport network improvements, including where improved access is required (p118). PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

*Note: According to the Implementation Plan these comprise ‘Techniques to influence people’s travel behaviour towards more sustainable options, including Travel Plans and marketing services, such as travel awareness campaigns websites for car share schemes, car clubs and encouraging teleworking’ (p251).

7.5.6 Part 2 of this Policy relates specifically to ‘New Lakeside Regional Centre’ and states;

‘The Council supports the transformation of the northern part of the Lakeside Basin into a new regional centre. This will be achieved in policy through other Local Development Documents. Regeneration and remodelling of the wider Lakeside Basin and West Thurrock areas will be taken forward with the following guiding principles: i. Securing more sustainable movement patterns, reduced private motor vehicle-dependence and complementary travel demand management measures including an area-wide travel plan. ii. Improving local accessibility and connectivity by public transport and pedestrian and cyclist permeability throughout the area including consideration of ways to reconnect the north and the south of the area, a high frequency service rail station in the south, and a personal rapid transit system. iii. Providing the necessary improvements to the local and strategic road network. iv. Introduction of a car parking charging and management regime’ (p118).

7.5.7 Table 15 provides the details of the Implementation Framework for all the Core Strategy Policies. With regards ‘Lakeside Transport Package’ it states ‘To be set out in the Local Development Document’ (p252).

 CSTP15 ‘Transport in Greater Thurrock’ – seeks to improve accessibility, especially to work, education and healthcare and sets out a number of measures to be undertaken by the Council and partners.  CSTP16 ‘National And Regional Transport Networks’ - This Policy seeks to deliver improvements to national and regional transport networks to ensure growth does not result in routes being above capacity. It advises that public transport improvements will be prioritised in order to achieve a modal shift. To achieve this Part 1 of the Policy identifies a number of measures including; ‘(III) Provide a route linking Thurrock Urban Area to Basildon through SERT by 2016 followed by additional routes to other Regional Transport Nodes. (V). Improve capacity and connections between modes of transport at key transport interchanges such as rail stations. Priority will be given to: i. Improvements of inter-urban public transport routes and connections, and especially access to Strategic Employment Sites. ii. Improvements at Grays, Stanford le Hope, Chafford Hundred / Lakeside, Tilbury, and Purfleet, and a new rail station at West Thurrock’. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

7.5.8 Part 2 of this Policy states that ‘Thurrock Council will, with the Highways Agency and relevant stakeholders where appropriate, identify cost effective interim measures to deliver sustainable and efficient national and regional transportation infrastructure within Thurrock’.

 CSTP18 ‘Green Infrastructure’ - This policy seeks a net gain in green infrastructure. Part 4 relates to programmes and section (iii) states ‘Allocations for new Green Infrastructure for Lakeside will be identified in other relevant Development Plan Documents’.

7.5.9 Other relevant thematic policies include;  CSTP12 – Education and learning  CSTP13 – Emergency Services and utilities  CSTP19 – Biodiversity  CSTP20 – Open Space  CSTP22 – Thurrock Design  CSTP23 – Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness  CSTP25 – Addressing Climate Change  CSTP27 – Management and reduction of Flood Risk  CSTP29 – Waste Strategy

7.5.10 The Core Strategy contains a series of detailed ‘Management of Development Policies’ of which the following are the most relevant;

 PMD1 – Minimising pollution and impacts on amenity  PMD2 – Design and layout  PMD5 - Open spaces, Outdoor Sports and recreation facilities  PMD7 – Biodiversity and development  PMD8 - Parking Standards  PMD9 – Road network hierarchy  PMD10 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans  PMD12 - Sustainable Buildings  PMD13 - Decentralised, renewable and low carbon energy generation  PMD14 - Carbon Neutral Development  PMD15 – Flood Risk Assessment  PMD16 - Developer Contributions

7.5.11 There are a number of Technical Studies that have been produced in order to provide the evidence base for the LDF that are set out in the Local Development Scheme (2011).

7.5.12 At the 29 February 2012 Full Council meeting Thurrock Council agreed to commence a focused Review of the Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development DPD. The scope of the focused Review including planning issues and policies will be subject to consultation during 2012.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

7.6 Site Specific Allocations and Policies DPD – Focused Changes made to the Core Strategy in late 2010 deleted reference to a ‘Lakeside Area Action Plan’ and amended the Core Strategy so that the work on the future expansion of Lakeside is to be incorporated into the Sites Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (SSADPD) with delivery and implementation matters to be set out in a ‘Lakeside Supplementary Planning Document’. While the Core Strategy Policy CSTP7 (Network of Centres) commits to the expansion of Lakeside, it devolves the detail to the SSADPD.

7.6.1 The Consultation Draft “Issues and Options” SSADPD was subject to 12 weeks of consultation commencing on the 16th March 2012 and concluding on the 8th June 2012. The SSADPD covers all types of development site across the Borough, including a major Inset Plan on the future development of Lakeside as a Regional Town Centre. Chapter 9 sets out options for the future development of Lakeside.

7.6.2 Thurrock Council has commissioned a suite of technical studies to provide supporting evidence for the development and policy options. These include;  Interim Sustainability Appraisal, Strategic Environmental Assessment and Appropriate Assessment Report  Interim Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Report  Thurrock Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Update (SHLAA)  Thurrock Retail Study Update (Roger Tym, Feb 2012)  Thurrock Employment Land Review Update (ELR)  Thurrock Lakeside Basin Preliminary Infrastructure Assessment - Baseline (2011)  Thurrock Lakeside Basin Infrastructure Assessment (March 2012) – this includes a preliminary assessment of infrastructure requirements and costs for the ‘Strategic Framework Options’ presented in the draft SSADPD  Thurrock Lakeside Soft Market Testing of Housing Development Options Report (Feb 2012)  Lakeside Transport Modelling Assessment (SKM, 2012)* (*at the time of drafting this report this was not public) PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

7.6.3 In the SSADPD the Lakeside study area has been divided into the following Zones for ease of reference;

 Zone A (Lakeside Shopping Centre)  Zone B (Lakeside Retail Park/Tesco)  Zone C1 (Land East and West of Heron Way)  Zone C2 (Land South of West Thurrock Way/East of Euclid Way, West Thurrock)  Zone C3 (Junction Retail Parks)  Zone D1 (Land north and south of Motherwell Way (West))  Zone D2 (Former Tunnel Industrial Estate)  Zone D3 (Land west of Weston Avenue)

7.6.4 Section 9.4.14 sets out a ‘draft Vision Statement’ for Lakeside. Section 9.5 sets out draft ‘Development and Design Principles for Lakeside Regional Town Centre’. Section 9.7 sets out two ‘Core Options’ summarised below;

 ‘Condensed centre’ principally focusing development on Zone A i.e. LSC.  ‘Expanded Core’ principally focusing development at Zone A (LSC) and Area B (comprising Lakeside Retail Park and Tesco’s).

7.6.5 Section 9.8 (p153) sets out ‘Strategic Spatial Framework Options’ which shows two options based upon the ‘Expanded Core’ approach referred to above.

7.6.6 Strategic Spatial Framework Option 1 includes Zones A, B, C2 and C1 and, in summary, includes;

‐ Principal Retail Zones A (Lakeside Shopping Centre) + B (Lakeside Retail Park/Tesco) facing each other around the lake

‐ Bridges over Lake Alexandra and West Thurrock Way

‐ Zone D1 and D2 redeveloped to provide housing

‐ 50,000sq.m net comparison retail by 2019 plus an additional 10,000sq.m to 2026 (total of 80,250 sq.m gross). This includes;

o 41,000sq.m (gross) zone A (Lakeside Shopping Centre) (c30,750 net)

o 24,000sq.m (gross) zone B (Lakeside Retail Park/Tesco) (c.18,000 net)

o 15,250sq.m (gross) zones C1 and C2 combined) (Land East and West of Heron Way) (Land South of West Thurrock Way/East of Euclid Way, West Thurrock) (c.11,300 net)

‐ 8,500 sq.m of gross convenience retail floor area (c 6,375 net) PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

7.6.7 Strategic Spatial Framework Option 2 includes Zones A, B, C2 and C1, compared to Option 1 this places greater emphasis on the transformational potential of Zone B (Lakeside Retail Park/Tesco) and, in summary, includes;

‐ Principal Retail Zones A (Lakeside Shopping Centre) + B (Lakeside Retail Park/Tesco)

‐ Bridges over Lake Alexandra

‐ Southern link road enabling the closure of West Thurrock Way

‐ 50,000sq.m net comparison retail by 2019 + additional 16,000sq.m to 2026 (total of 88,250sq.m gross). This includes

o 30,000sq.m (gross) zone A (Lakeside Shopping Centre) (c.22,410 sq.m net to 2026)

o 35,000sq.m (gross) zone B (Lakeside Retail Park/Tesco) (c.26,245 sq.m net to 2026)

o 23,250sq.m (gross) zones C1, C2 and C3 combined (c. 17,365 sq.m net to 2026)

7.6.8 The main difference between the Options 1 and 2 relate to the overall scale of development, transformational potential of Core Zones A (i.e. LSC) and B (Lakeside Retail Park/Tesco) and the extent of ‘complementary uses’ located outside of Core Zone A and B.

7.6.9 Section 9.9 of the SSADPD sets out the above Options with reference to the individual Zones. It also gives an indication of how the planned development could contribute to the transformation of the basin into a town centre in three main ways;

 Direct contribution, by way of new uses and/or infrastructure;  Financial contribution towards common infrastructure (such as the hopper bus); and  By links between a zone and another (like bridging across the lake) and explaining how they will be achieved.

7.6.10 With regards Zone ‘A’ (LSC) the subject of this application, the SSADPD identifies the following ‘principles for transformation of Zone A’ (p168) which are sought irrespective of the either Strategic Spatial Framework Option;

 Orientate development in the zone towards other zones forming Lakeside Regional Town Centre – i.e. development should look west and south  Utilise and activate the lake front along its whole length  Increase frequency of routes through the zone and outward to other zones, including provision of bridges across the lake  Reduce prominence of car-parking and motor vehicle dominance  Improve legibility for pedestrians and cyclists PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

 Promote an integrated mix of uses, including residential, community uses, public realm and green space in an externalised street environment with active frontages  Emphasise the Gateway and Interchange role of the zone – generate a sense of arrival to Lakeside Regional Town Centre  Connect to the area north of the A1306, subject to the complementary role this area may make to the future Regional Town Centre.

7.6.11 Detailed below is a summary of the options presented in relation to Zone ‘A’ (LSC);

‘Zone ‘A’ – Option 1 ‘Development of a ‘Condensed Centre’ focused on Zone A’ (p169).

o 41,000sq.m comparison retail (gross) (c.30,750 sq.m net)

o 2,000sq.m convenience retail (gross) (c.1,500sq.m net)

o Housing development 100-150

o Flagship leisure and quality hotel

7.6.12 According to the SSADPD this option for Zone ‘A’ focuses on the ‘condensed centre’ approach i.e. it considers the proposition that Zone ‘A’ itself can perform most of the core town centre functions. Notwithstanding this, the quantum of retail development accords with Strategic Spatial Framework Option 1 (i.e. the ‘expanded core approach’) detailed above and would not preclude the level of retail growth envisaged within Zone ‘B’ (Lakeside Retail Park) in Strategic Spatial Framework Option 1 (as illustrated in ‘Zone B: Option 2 – ‘Expanded Core’ of Town Centre (1)’)

‘Zone A – Option 2 ‘Extended and remodelled Lakeside Shopping Centre incorporating complementary uses and linking to Zone B’. This option for Zone A is presented under the ‘extended core’ approach by which both Zones A and B provide the core town centre uses, albeit with a greater quantum of comparison floorspace being allocated to Zone B (Lakeside Retail Park/Tesco).

o 30,000sq.m comparison retail (gross) (c.22,500sq.m net)

o 1,000sq.m convenience retail (gross) (c.750sq.m net)

o Housing development 150-300

o Flagship leisure and quality hotel

7.6.13 The SSADPD identifies the contribution the above options could make to a future Regional Town Centre (9.9.12 + 21), barriers to implementation (9.9.14 + 22) and required infrastructure (p171 + 174).

7.6.14 Attached as Appendix 1 of this report is Tables 7 to 9 comparing the floorspace sought by way of the current application against that presented in the SSADPD. In addition, tables detailing how the allocation of floor area in the ‘Options for the Lakeside Basin by Zone’ together adhere to the allocation of floor area in one or other of the Strategic Spatial Framework Options described above. The Options in the SSADPD are not PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

presented as being mutually exclusive and as such does not rule out a hybrid of the two being advanced.

7.6.15 Detailed delivery and implementation matters are to be set out in a Implementation Plan for Lakeside Regional Town Centre which will accompany the Submission Draft Lakeside Plan (para 9.14.28). Given the stage which the SSADPD is at, the Implementation Plan has yet to be produced.

7.6.16 The LDS (Jan 2011) envisaged the submission of the SSADPD in September 2012 and adoption in July 2013. The LDS (2011) does not reflect the slippage in the Core Strategy. Consultation on the SSADPD ran until the 8th June 2012. Further assessments will be required including viability testing and the production of detailed delivery and implementation matters. The submission option would be subject to further consultation, likely to be in the later part of 2012.

7.6.17 Given that the SSADPD document is at the issues and options stage and parts of the evidence base have not been subject to examination it is considered that the weight that can be afforded to the SSADPD at this stage is very limited.

7.7 Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation Documents - A suite of non- statutory documents were prepared to provide guidance and direction to the Development Corporations regeneration activities including the ‘Lakeside and West Thurrock Masterplan’ (Approved November 2008). The Masterplan is non-statutory and was produced prior to the RSS Single Issue Review and the Adoption of the LDF Core Strategy. The Masterplan proposed at least 115,000 sq.m of new retail, café, bar and restaurant floorspace associated with new leisure facilities (p1). This quantum of additional retail development exceeds the amount planned by statutory Development Plan. In light of the above and the demise of the Development Corporation, it is considered that no weight can be afforded to this document in the determination of this application. Notwithstanding this, it does identify many of the constraints and opportunities to bring about the expansion and transformation of the Lakeside basin along more sustainable lines. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.0 ASSESSMENT

8. There are essentially ten main issues relating to the consideration and determination of this application: I. Development Plan context, retail impact and conformity with Policies for the Lakeside Basin. Part 1 of the report also includes consideration of traffic impact, access, car parking and other transport issues. II. Urban design, townscape, visual impacts; III. Sustainable design IV. Flood risk, drainage, water quality and water resources; V. Ground conditions, contamination and remediation; VI. Noise and air quality; VII. Effects upon ecology and nature conservation; VIII. Phasing and impact of construction; IX. Socio-economic effects X. Inter relationships and cumulative effects

I. Development Plan context, retail impact and conformity with Policies for the Lakeside Basin;

8.1.1 Sequential test and retail impact assessment - The applicant’s ‘Planning and Retail Statement’ considers the proposal against PPS4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) which was relevant at the time of submission but has subsequently been replaced by the NPPF. Part 2 of the NPPF relates to ‘Ensuring the vitality of town centres’ and presents a substantially shortened and simplified set of policies for retail planning.

8.1.2 The applicants assessment advises that; ‘Despite the clear adopted regional and emerging local policy support for the designation of Lakeside Shopping Centre as a regional centre, in the absence of a fully adopted policy framework, for the purposes of this assessment, we have considered the PPS4 tests on the basis that the proposals are currently in an out of centre location’ (para 6.1). With regards to the NPPF the policy structure is still broadly the same as PPS4, following the Town Centre first approach.

8.1.3 Under the former PPS4, planning applications for retail and other town centre uses that are not in a centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan need to be considered having regard to a sequential approach (Policy E15) and a demonstration that the proposal would not lead to significant adverse impacts in terms of any of the impacts scheduled in policies 16.1 (impact assessment) and EC10.2. The NPPF sets out the Sequential Test at Paragraphs 24-27;

24. Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.

25. This sequential approach should not be applied to applications for small scale rural offices or other small scale rural development.

26. When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m).This should include assessment of: ● the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and ● the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made.

27. Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused’.

8.1.4 Consideration needs to be given to the status of Lakeside in the Development Plan. The NPPF requires Local Plans to define a network (the pattern of provision of centres) and hierarchy of centres (the role and relationship of centres in the network) that is resilient to anticipated future economic changes (para 23). The RSS in the form of the East of England Plan (May 2008) called for a Single Issue Review of Policy ETG2 (Thurrock Key Centre for Development and Change) with the purpose of preparing a robust strategic planning framework to guide the regeneration and redevelopment of the Lakeside Basin. As detailed in the planning policy section, this led to the revision to RSS Policies E5 and ETG2. Revised RSS Policy E5 makes the northern part of the Lakeside Basin a Regional Centre and forms part of the ‘Regional structure of town centres’ defined in Policy E5. Policy E5 recognises that Lakeside, like nine other cities and towns in the East of England, is of strategic importance for retail and other town centre purposes. Policy E5 goes onto state;

‘Major new retail development and complementary town centre uses should primarily be located in the above centres and be consistent in scale with the size and character of the centre and its role in the regional structure. Development plan documents should only propose higher order provision where need is clearly established and the development would: • result in a more sustainable pattern of development and movement, including a reduction in the need to travel; and • have no significant harmful impact on other centres or the transport network. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.5 The supporting text states; ‘No need has been identified for additional out-of-centre regional/sub-regional shopping centres. The only such centre within the East of England was the Thurrock Lakeside regional shopping centre within the Lakeside Basin area of Thames Gateway. Lakeside Basin has the largest concentration of retail floorspace in the region and as a result of the review of Policy ETG2 has been designated a Regional Centre and identified in Policy E5. Policy ETG2 provides the strategic policy framework governing the approach to the area’s future development as a town centre’ (Para 4.21).

8.1.6 The Panel Report for the RSS SIR states that ‘designation of a new Regional Centre at Lakeside on the basis that it will provide the impetus required to overcome the identified deficiencies’ (p2). Whilst RSS Policy E5 acknowledges Lakeside as a Regional Centre, RSS Policy ETG2 makes attainment of Regional Centre status conditional on the adoption of an appropriate LDD providing the policy framework governing the approach to the area’s future development and meeting a range of objectives set out in that policy. LDF-CS Policy CSTP7 ‘Network of Centres’ also supports the transformation of the Lakeside Basin into a ‘new regional centre’ and, consistent with the RSS, also seeks to achieve this by way of an LDD.

8.1.7 With regard to the principle of additional town centre uses at Lakeside, it is clear that at both Regional and LDF Policies afford a significant quantum of additional retail development to Lakeside but specify a plan-led approach to its provision that will provide for the attainment of Regional Centre Status. These Policies have been informed by the relative status of Lakeside to other centres, strategic choices about those centres, assessments of impacts of the quantum of additional retail development planned and the ability of this to facilitate transformational change at Lakeside. The RSS SIR Panel Report states; ‘The 50,000sqm net of comparison floorspace by 2019 can be accepted because all the available evidence indicates that there will be no undue impact on surrounding centres. We recommend that the release of this additional development should be inextricably linked to the delivery of the wider objectives for Lakeside Basin’ (p2).

8.1.8 It goes onto state; ‘All of the evidence available indicates that there would be no undue impact on the vitality and viability of adjoining centres and there is sufficient headroom in the estimates of future demand to support the ambitions of adjoining centres’ (para 2.15, p12). .

8.1.9 In terms of the sequential approach, the applicant acknowledges that ‘the proposed extension of LSC is site specific, as it is proposed to meet the identified need for additional floorspace at LSC to support its emerging regional centre status’ (para 6.276). The proposal does not therefore envisage the development being in addition to the 50,000m2 of net comparison retail floorspace provided for by virtue of both the RSS and LDF-CS. It is considered that this application should be considered in light of, and not divorced from, RSS and LDF policies seeking the transformation of Lakeside into a new regional (town) centre. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.10 The applicant’s Retail Assessment, in part, draws upon the output from consultants GVA Grimley’s work for the RSS SIR to justify the scale of the proposed comparison goods space and to demonstrate that this would not prejudice planned developments in other centres. The GVA Grimley work was produced in the spring of 2008 and is therefore four years old. London Borough of Redbridge consultation response detailed in Section 5 raises concerns that the basis for growth in retail capacity is out of date and not representative of the current retail growth trends which are predicted to be significantly lower than was predicted in 2008. More recent studies have indicated that the level of net comparison floorspace envisaged by both the RSS and LDF remain acceptable. In June 2009, Oxford Retail Consultants working on behalf of the Development Corporation forecast that c.56,000 sq m of net new comparison goods space would be sustainable by 2016 and that levels of retail impact on all nearby centres would be acceptable (ORC, “Consumer Demand Analysis of West Thurrock and Lakeside (Version 1)”, Table 1 (11 June 2009). Thurrock Retail Study Update (Roger Tym and Partners) produced in February 2012, assesses locally generated quantitative need for both comparison and convenience floor space between 2011-26 and as such does not assess the impact arising on other centres or the needs arising from quantitative need arising out with Thurrock. It concludes that the locally generated need alone will comprise 35,000sq.m net comparison floorspace and 8,600sq.m of net comparison convenience floorspace by 2026.

8.1.11 The LDF Core Strategy went through EIP and was adopted in December 2011 and as such the evidence underpinning the LDF, including the retail expansion at Lakeside, was considered sound. Provision is made by both Regional and LDF Policy for 50,000sq.m of additional net comparison retail floorspace by 2019. In light of the above, it is considered that the evidence base remains sound and a refresh of the GVA Grimley data is unlikely to produce a significantly different quantum of comparison goods space than that provided for in the adopted Development Plan.

8.1.12 London Borough of Redbridge's representation suggests that the impact of the proposal on other centres has not been assessed as required by PPS4. The Retail Impact Assessment accompanying the application assesses trade diversion from London Borough of Redbridge and Ilford Metropolitan Centre together with other areas. The results are summarised in Table 14 in Appendix 4 of the December 2011 Planning and Retail Statement. The proposal is expected to divert £5.08 million of comparison goods trade from IIford in 2018, an impact of 1.1%. The applicant considers that ‘this level of impact will be more than offset by projected expenditure growth between 2011 and 2018. The comparison turnover of Ilford will grow from £343 million in 2011 to £446 million in 2018, allowing for trade diversion to Lakeside. The proposals will not have an adverse impact on any centres in the London Borough of Redbridge’ (NLP letter 27.02.12). In light of the above, it is considered that the level of impact would be small and significantly offset by the projected expenditure growth.

8.1.13 The applicants retail impact assessment identifies that impact on the comparison goods floorspace in Grays town centre, the closest town centre to LSC, is estimated to be 3.8% (para 6.68). However, allowing for the impact of the LSC extension, the turnover of existing comparison floorspace in Grays is expected to grow by about 31% between PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

2011 and 2018 (para 6.76, p42). In light of the above, it is considered that the level of impact would be significantly offset by the projected expenditure growth.

8.1.14 The Chief Executives Delivery Unit (CEDU) has highlighted various studies which indicate the relatively poor ‘health’ of Grays and other town centres in Thurrock. Furthermore, that RSS Policy ETG2 Part (1) charges the LDD with ‘developing complementary policies for the regeneration of Grays town centre and other urban areas in the Borough’. CEDU made representations to the applicant identifying a range of existing and emerging policies and seeking a financial contribution of £185,000 towards the development of complementary strategies for the regeneration of Grays and other centres. The applicant has agreed to make this financial contribution towards the development of complementary planning strategies in Grays and local town centres.

8.1.15 With regards to the 1,991m2 NAGIA of convenience goods floorspace proposed, the applicant’s assessment concludes that; ‘The small scale of the potential convenience goods element of the LSC extension means that convenience impact on existing facilities in the catchment area will be low, and impact will be offset by expenditure growth. There will be no adverse harm to convenience goods facilities in the catchment area or any other facilities outside the catchment area’ (para 6.89)

8.1.16 RSS Policy ETG2 states that the convenience retail floor area at the new Regional Centre should reflect the Borough’s population growth. LDF-CS Policy CSTP7 (Network of Centres) envisages at least 4,000 sqm of net convenience floorspace with the New Lakeside Regional Centre. The draft SSADPD envisages up to 6,375sq.m of net convenience floorspace (6,000sq.m gross) up to 2026. The proposed quantum of convenience goods floorspace is therefore within the quantum envisaged by the LDF-CS and draft SSADPD. Given the committed and planned residential growth in this part of Thurrock the conclusions of the applicant’s retail statement that there would be no adverse harm arising from the convenience goods element of the LSC extension is supported.

8.1.17 It is considered that the proposal would be consistent in scale of planned growth at Lakeside and the role this centre has in the regional structure of Town Centres as defined by RSS Policy E5. Having regard to the applicant’s impact assessment and the above analysis, it is considered that the proposal would not have a significantly harmful impact on other centres and accords with RSS Policy E5 and paragraphs 24-27 of the NPPF.

8.1.18 Assessment against policies for Lakeside

8.1.19 RSS Policy ETG2 (Thurrock Key Centre for Development and Change) provides regional policy for the Thurrock Urban Area. It notes that the Thurrock Urban Area is a Key Centre for Development and Change, with the northern part of Lakeside Basin defined as a Regional Centre in terms of Policy E5 (Regional Structure of Town Centres)(as revised). PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.20 Part 1 of RSS Policy ETG2 sets out what Local Development Documents (LDD's) should do to achieve development and change in the Thurrock Urban Area. Bullet 4 relates to the Lakeside Basin, and is therefore the most relevant to the proposals. It states LDD’s should: “…secure the transformation of the northern part of Lakeside Basin as a town centre conditional upon the measures set out in (2), (3) and (4) below.”

8.1.21 Part (2) of RSS Policy ETG2 specifies that the LDD should guide the regeneration and remodelling of the wider Lakeside Basin and West Thurrock area on sustainable mixed use lines by addressing the nine points detailed in the Policy. Part (3) of RSS Policy ETG2 specified 7 points that LDD must provide for in order for that the northern part of Lakeside Basin to attain Regional Centre status. Part (4) of RSS Policy ETG2 states that: ‘Retail expansion at the new Regional Centre should be limited to 50,000 m2 of net comparison floorspace by 2019 together with an appropriate amount of convenience floorspace to reflect the Borough’s population growth. No retail expansion should be approved until the adoption of the appropriate Local Development Documents and the imposition of appropriate conditions and obligations to secure the objectives of paragraphs (2) and (3)’.

8.1.22 In light of RSS Policy ETG2, a pre-condition of any retail expansion at Lakeside is to have an appropriate LDD in place. The LDD is charged with providing a detailed framework for the remodelling of the northern part of the Lakeside Basin and the means by which it will be implemented effectively in order to achieve the objectives set out in parts (1), (2) and (3) of the RSS Policy ETG2, including attaining Regional Centre Status and secure transformation as a town centre along sustainable mixed use lines.

8.1.23 The transformation of Lakeside into a ‘Regional Centre (town centre)’ forms part of the LDF-CS Spatial Vision for 2026 (para 3.10, p24 & 3.25 p26). The LDF-CS identifies ‘Lakeside and West Thurrock’ as a ‘Key Areas of Regeneration and Growth’ (para 3.19, p28). As detailed in the policy section, there are a number of Policies in the LDF-CS which specifically refer to the Lakeside Basin. LDF-CS Policy CSSP2 (Sustainable Employment Growth) identifies Lakeside Basin / West Thurrock as one of five key economic clusters. It envisages LDD’s identifying proposals to bring forward the diversification and redevelopment of the Lakeside Basin (p42). LDF-CS Policy CSSP3 (Sustainable Infrastructure) identifies a number of ‘Key Strategic Infrastructure Projects’ it judges as essential to the delivery of the Core Strategy including a ‘‘Lakeside Expansion and Diversification Transport Package’ which will form part of the LDD. Given the stage at which the SSADPD has reached the ‘‘Lakeside Expansion and Diversification Transport Package’ has yet to be produced and will be developed alongside the preferred option towards the end of 2012.

8.1.24 With regard thematic policies in the LDF Core Strategy, Policy CTP7 (Network of Centres) expresses support for ‘the transformation of the Lakeside Basin into a new regional centre’. It goes onto state that ‘This will be achieved in policy through the Local Development Document’. A number of other thematic policies relevant to proposed development at Lakeside identify that specific detail and achievement of policy objectives rely upon the production of a Local Development Document, namely; PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

 CSTP6 ‘Strategic Employment Provision’  CSTP9 ‘Well being: Leisure and Sports’  CTSP10 ‘Community facilities’  CSTP14 ‘Transport in the Thurrock Urban Area: Purfleet to Tilbury’  CSTP18 ‘Green Infrastructure’

8.1.25 Having regard to RSS Policy ETG2 there is a policy requirement to have in place an appropriate LDD containing a level of detail to enable the objectives of ETG2 to be met before any approval is given for major comparison retail proposals of the type now being proposed. Consistent with RSS Policy ETG2, the LDF-CS Policies and in particular Policy CSTP7 supports the transformation of the Lakeside Basin into a new regional centre and seeks to achieve this through the SSADPD.

8.1.26 The LDF SSADPD will incorporate a major Inset Plan on the future development of Lakeside as a Regional Town Centre. This will be accompanied by a ‘Lakeside Implementation and Delivery’ Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The SSADPD is at issues and options stage and as such a range of options for the Lakeside basin have been consulted upon. Given the current stage of the SSADPD, the consultation responses to the draft SSADPD have yet to be considered and no preferred option for the transformation of the Lakeside Basin into a new regional centre has been produced. Nor is there the ‘Lakeside Expansion and Diversification Transport Package’ or a ‘Lakeside Implementation and Delivery’ SPD.

8.1.27 The LDS (Jan 2011) states that the SSADPD will be submitted in September 2012 and adopted in July 2013. As detailed in the Policy section of this report, the LDS (2011) does not reflect the slippage that occurred in the Core Strategy and as such this timetable will need to be subject to further revision, potentially delaying adoption of the SSADPD past July 2013.

8.1.28 The Secretary of State has clearly stated his intention to revoke RSS’s and the provisions of the Localism Act 2011 reflect this intention. It is therefore the Government’s clear intention to lay orders in Parliament revoking the existing RSS’s, but this is subject to the outcome of the Environmental Assessments that the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is undertaking. Consultation on this closed on 20 January 2012. Decisions on the revocations will not be made until the Secretary of State and Parliament have had the opportunity to consider the outcome of the environmental assessment process. In view of this, the intention to revoke can only be given limited weight.

8.1.29 At the time of reporting this application the RSS remains part of the development plan. Whilst the LDF-CS does not contain such an explicit prohibition of retail expansion as RSS Policy ETG2 until such time as an appropriate LDD is in place, as detailed above it does adopt a plan-led approach to the transformation of the northern Lakeside basin consistent with that embodied in RSS Policy ETG2.

8.1.30 Whilst Thurrock Council are embarking on a focused review of the Core Strategy, the scope of the review and the planning issues and policies to be covered have yet to be identified and will be subject to consultation. At this stage it is considered that no weight PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

should be afforded to the consideration of a review as it relates to policies governing the future development of Lakeside.

8.1.31 In line with the RSS, the current Core Strategy envisages a plan led approach to the transformation of the northern part of the Lakeside Basin. The LDD will detail how the spatial objectives of the RSS and LDF-CS are to be achieved including; i) defining a town centre boundary, with a designated primary shopping area; ii) provide for a greater mix of uses and services including a significant increase in housing and office accommodation and the provision of convenience retail floorspace; iii) provide an indicative scale of floorspace for each major town centre use; iv) provide indicative thresholds for new retail floorspace, phased with required infrastructure; v) design and public realm enhancements; vi) improved accessibility for pedestrians and by non-car modes, including the introduction of a car parking charging and management regime; and

8.1.32 All of which will be guided by an ‘Implementation Plan’ that will seek to ensure the transformation is supported by the necessary infrastructure to allow the Lakeside Basin to transform in the manner envisaged in the LDD. Furthermore, the LDD will need to determine what infrastructure is required, where and at what time to support the transformation and the extent to which commercial and residential development will contribute to the provision of infrastructure in that context together with the role of Thurrock Council as a deliver agent.

8.1.33 With regards to the current application and the above current policy position, three questions arise;

Q1. The extent to which the proposal would achieve or sufficiently assist in achieving the objectives for the Lakeside Basin detailed within statutory policies so far as they can be interpreted at this stage.

Q2. Is there prejudice caused to the achievement of the objectives for the Lakeside Basin detailed within statutory policies?

Q3. Is there a sound justification to depart from a plan-led approach embodied in the LDF and the RSS Policy requirement to have in place an appropriate LDD to deliver the economic, environmental and transport objectives for the Lakeside Basin and Regional Centre?

8.1.34 The following considers (c), Q1 and Q2 referred to above, i.e. (Q1) the extent to which the proposal would achieve or sufficiently assist in achieving the objectives for the Lakeside Basin detailed within statutory policies so far as they can be interpreted at this stage, (Q2) Is there prejudice caused to the achievement of the objectives for the Lakeside Basin detailed within statutory policies?

8.1.35 Regional Policy sets out strategic principles and objectives to guide the Local Authority in its local policy and LDD’s. Having regards to the LDF-CS, the detail for the regeneration and remodelling of the Lakeside Basin together with a strategy for implementation will be determined locally through the LDF SSADPD. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.36 Both the RSS and LDF seek to use the additional planned development within the northern part of the Lakeside Basin as a driver to bring about a Regional Town Centre. A significant element of this both in terms of quantum and investment is the 50,000sq.m of net additional comparison retail. The application has a Net Additional Net Sales Area (NANSA) for retail of 30,121sq.m and as such represents 60.2% of the total comparison retail floor area permissible under RSS Policy ETG2 and LDF-CS. Permitting the development would commit a significant quantum of the retail development permissible in advance of the SSADPD, contrary to the approach detailed in the Development Plan.

8.1.37 Detailed below is the consideration of the proposal against the criteria of RSS Policy ETG2 parts 2 and 3, other relevant development plan policies and the options for how the objective for the Lakeside Basin are currently proposed to be met as expressed in the draft SSADPD. When considering this it need to be borne in mind that given the stage which the draft SSADPD and associated Implementation Plan have reached, in some instances it is either difficult or impossible to judge with any certainty at this stage;

 what will be specified within the final LDD including how it will address the requirements of the LDF-CS and RSS and bring about the transformation of the Lakeside Basin,  how and by whom it will be delivered,  whether the development proposed within this application goes sufficient far as to make a proportionate contribution to achieving the objectives of RSS Policy ETG2 and the attainment of a Regional Centre on sustainable mixed use lines.

ETG2 Part 2 (i) defining the boundary of the area; ETG2 Part 3 (i) a town centre boundary, with a designated primary shopping area;

8.1.38 The RSS Panel Report concluded that ‘a wider range of uses should be required within Lakeside Basin and that a new Regional Centre should be the focal point of a wide range of uses, service and facilities’ (para 4.13). LDF Policy CSTP7 (Network of centres) states ‘The Site Specific Allocations and Policies DPD will also include the Regional Town Centre boundary which will be identified on the Proposals Map’ (p92).

8.1.39 Section 9.11 of the consultation draft SSADPD considers ‘town centre boundaries and retail designations within Lakeside’. The draft SSADPD considers that Lakeside Shopping Centre comprises both the existing Primary Shopping Frontages and Primary Shopping Area within Lakeside (paras 9.11.5 – 7, p219). This is considered logical given the nature and scale of the retail offer and the location of public transport. Given the above and LSC function and location, it is considered highly likely that this designation will go forward, albeit it may be extended to cover other areas. It is considering that approving the development would re-enforce LSC status.

ETG2 Part 2 (ii) providing for a broader employment base through the identification of key strategic employment sites;

8.1.40 RSS Policy ETG2 seeks mixed use growth. With regards to employment generating uses this includes retail, office, hotel, assembly and leisure activities (part 2, (v)). LSC is primarily retail with a leisure offer, the latter principally via restaurants, cinema and PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

activities associated with the lake. Whilst the proposal would create employment given the mix of uses proposed it is not considered that it would broaden the employment base. In this regard LSC needs to be seen in the context of the northern part of the Lakeside basin and the role that other sites may play in delivering mixed use growth including residential and leisure. The draft SSADPD recognises that LSC (Zone A) is ‘dominated by the existing shopping mall and associated uses (principally parking) and so there is limited additional land available to provide may of the complimentary uses which are needed to support a sustainable community, even with significant remodelling of the existing car parking arrangements to enable the insertion of other uses, including built elements such as offices and residential, occurs’ (Para 9.7.9, p148). It is considered that the proposal would not prejudice further non-retail development within LSC should the finalised SSADPD deem that to be desirable. The applicant has provided an ‘Indicative Master Plan Vision’ which details potential further phases of development, including leisure uses focused around the western part of the mall. This is further considered below.

ETG2 Part 2 (v) promoting a greater mix of uses, including additional residential, office, hotel, and assembly and leisure activities; and ETG2 Part 2 (vi) improving the range of services and facilities; ETG2 Part 3 (ii) A greater mix of uses and services including significant increase in housing and office accommodation and the provision of convenience retail floorspace.

8.1.41 The RSS single issue review identified that ‘Existing development at Lakeside presently performs in part as a Regional Centre, but fails to provide the full range of services and functions found in other Regional Centres identified in Policy E5 of the East of England Plan’ (para 1.19, p8). To address deficiencies in town centre services and facilities Part 3 (ii) of ETG2 seeks the LDD providing for ‘a greater mix of uses and services including a significant increase in housing and office accommodation and provision of convenience floorspace’. LDF-CS Policy CSTP10 (Community facilities) identifies a desire to incorporate community facilities at Lakeside, albeit this is not specific to LSC.

8.1.42 The applicant has provided an ‘Indicative Master Plan Vision’ which details the potential development of the LSC over a 5-10 year and 10-15 year period (D&A, p50-51). In addition to the development proposed by way of this application, the Vision Plans detail residential, hotel and leisure opportunities to the west of the principal Mall. Whilst these proposals do not form part of this application and are merely an expression of future potential, they highlight that the LSC offers opportunities to play a part in broadening the employment base and the development would not prejudice the opportunities detailed. In light of the above, with it is considered that the proposal would not prejudice further non- retail development within LSC should the finalised SSADPD deem that to be desirable.

8.1.43 The development proposes the provision of convenience retail floorspace focused around the relocated bus station. The proposed quantum of convenience goods floorspace (1,991sq.m) is within the quantum (minimum 4,000sq.m) envisaged by the LDF-CS Policy CSTP7. The consultation draft SSADPD Strategic Spatial Framework Options ‘Option 1’ and ‘Option 2’ indicates up to 8,500sq.m of convenience goods floorspace within the extended core as a whole. The ‘Land Use Options’ for Zone A (i.e. LSC) allocate2000sq.m (gross) of Convenience Retail Floorspace under Option 1 and PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

1000sq.m under Option 2 (p173). The development would therefore exceed the quantum of convenience goods floorspace detailed in consultation draft SSADPD Option 2.

8.1.43 The Thurrock Retail Study 2007 Part 9 considers strategy to inform the LDF advises ‘Given the size and quantity of the existing Tesco store it may be considered that there is limited qualitative need for additional convenience goods provision within the Basin, although we would see some benefit in the provision of a food hall as part of a larger store which may be associated with the expansion of Lakeside Shopping Centre. This would increase the potential for dual purpose shopping on the same trip’ (para 9.22, p47).

8.1.44 It is considered that the location of the proposed convenience floorspace would offer certain benefits;  enhance the quality and choice of convenience goods within what the Issues and Options SSADPD envisages will become part of the town centre,  provide a food shopping location that could serve the day-to-day needs of staff and visitors to LSC thereby encouraging dual purpose trips and reducing linked trips,  provide a location for convenience goods which can be accessed by sustainable forms of transport.

8.1.45 In terms of negatives, the proposal would take a proportion of the finite net convenience floorspace with the New Lakeside Regional Centre and as such the proposal would potentially reduce the benefits that may be derived from locating this floorspace elsewhere within the Lakeside Basin should that be deemed to be desirable.

ETG2 Part 2 (viii) improving local accessibility and connectivity by public transport and pedestrian and cyclist permeability throughout the area including consideration of ways to reconnect the north and the south of the area, a new high frequency service rail station in the south, and a personal rapid transport system;

8.1.46 With regards pedestrian and cyclist permeability throughout the area, TTGDC’s Masterplan provides a useful summary of the current issues faced by the northern part of the Lakeside Basin;

‘the area is dominated by car movements which are complicated and often uninviting and hazardous to pedestrians’ (p11). It also identifies that ‘a lack of integration between each of the three main centres and between the other big independent retail units (Tesco, Costco, B&Q and Ikea). The network of footways is not inviting due to the intimidating nature of the highways and the long distances involved. There are also limited facilities for cycling. Lake Alexandra is a barrier to movement between the shopping centre and the retail park. The B186 West Thurrock Way, the main spine road through the Basin, is also a major barrier to movement by foot and cycle. Whilst the spine road has pedestrian footways of a good standard with occasional pedestrian crossing facilities the road is a dual, two lane carriageway, subject to fast moving high traffic flows. The large roundabout junctions are particularly intimidating to both pedestrians and cyclists’ (p12). PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.47 The Lakeside Basin has a strong concentration of successful retail developments; specifically LSC, Lakeside Retail Park and The Junction. They are to a degree segregated due to the dominance of road infrastructure, the lack of high quality footway and cycle connections throughout the area, lack of ‘joining’ developments. This acts to discourage sustainable movement patterns and encourages cross-site and inter-basin vehicular journeys, contributing to high traffic flows and congestion.

8.1.48 The current arrangement of buildings, road infrastructure and site levels on LSC site can hinder convenient pedestrian movement across the site and to the wider Lakeside Basin. Figures 39 and 40 contained within the draft SSADPD detail Green Grid, public realm and non-vehicular links as they relate to Strategic Spatial Framework Options 1 and 2 respectively. The application proposes to create and enhance a number of routes. These are referred to below and assessed in relation to the routes illustrated in these figures.

Route 1 – Currently there is a footway from Tesco’s along the northern part of Alexandra Lake. This links onto the footway which runs to the boardwalk and further along the eastern part of Alexandra Lake. Permission has been granted for a northern link road for a bus together with a footway / cycleway from the roundabout located in the north-western part of LSC to Tesco’s (ref: 12/50446/TTGFUL). As part of this current application the applicant is proposing to create this link. The works would improve the existing pedestrian link through to Tesco’s and the wider basin and would also create a dedicated cycle link. It would also facilitate the creation of a dedicated bus link between LSC and Tesco’s to be used by existing services as appropriate and by a dedicated hopper bus proposed to be established and funded as part of the current proposals. This current application proposed to continue the footway cycleway east-west along an existing internal street located north of the extended mall. The eastern extent of the path would link onto route 2 and as such provide access to the north-south link along the eastern part of the Mall and wider connections to the relocated bus station, Chafford Hundred railway station and Route 3.

The proposed northern and north-eastern extensions reinforce the principal eastern orientation of the Mall. To access route 1 you would have to travel along the eastern facade of LSC2 and the multi-storey car park (LSC5) before crossing an internal road. Route 1 runs east-west along the northern side of the road, this area being flanked on the north by a steep landscaped embankment and to the south by four lane road, beyond which are the proposed multi-storey car and the rear of the northern extension (LSC1). From the proposed new north-eastern street, this external route is peripheral, skirts a wide road and involves passage to the rear of large buildings without active elevations. Whilst this is considered to limit the legibility and attractiveness of this as a route, this link is illustrated in Figures 39 and 40 of the SSADPD and therefore forms part of the identified ‘green infrastructure’.

Route 2 – comprises the footpath connection linking route 1 to the new retail and public spaces along the eastern side of LSC5 and LSC2. As detailed above, the applicant has made a commitment to seek permission and implement a scheme to enhance the linkages and public realm along the eastern part of the mall between the proposed northern extension and the bus PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

station. This link is illustrated in Figures 39 and 40 of the draft SSADPD and therefore forms part of the identified ‘green infrastructure’.

Route 3 – comprises a new pedestrian and cycle path running from the proposed new bus station south towards West Thurrock Way. To access the footway / cycleway in West Thurrock Way from the bus station this new link would involve crossing both an access and egress to an existing multi-storey car park (MSCP), a zebra crossing of two lanes of traffic serving a MSCP and two zebra crossings across the four lanes of the southern perimeter road. The quality of this route is further compromised by its relatively indirect nature, it runes alongside and crosses busy roads and involves the passage alongside large buildings without active elevations. Notwithstanding this, the link is illustrated in Figures 39 and 40 of the draft SSADPD and therefore forms part of the identified ‘green infrastructure’.

At present there are a number of visible desire lines from West Thurrock Way across an area of landscaped highway land to the south-west of the dive centre. The applicant is proposing to fund the provision of two small sections of footway / cycleway to formalise the link between routes 3 and 4 and the cycleway / footway that runs alongside West Thurrock Way.

Route 4 – Adjacent to the Alexandra Lake and west of the Mall is an existing footway alongside a four lane internal access road separated from the carriageway by an Armco barrier. This route connects onto Route 2 described above. This link is illustrated in Figures 39 and 40 of the draft SSADPD and therefore forms part of the identified ‘green infrastructure’.

Approximately half way along this route it is proposed to construction a cantilevered viewing platform over part of Alexandra Lake. It is proposed that the footway is widened by the removal of the barrier to create a wider footway (c.2m in width). The illustrative section details a 1.5m high parapet wall with mesh infill along the boundary between the footway and the area edging Lake Alexandra. The applicant advises that this performs the role as a vehicle barrier required as a result of the removal of the Armco barrier. Whilst this detail is illustrative, it is considered that the erection of a barrier of this scale and design would detract from the environment around the lake edge and provide a further disconnect between the public realm and the lake. Whilst the proposal would increase the width of the footway, it would retain the sense of a car dominated environment in this location. Whilst it is considered that the illustrative detail is not acceptable and it is disappointing that the applicant has declined to advance the continuation of a boardwalk style environment southwards along this route, it is considered that a condition could be imposed requiring an alternative scheme to be agreed pursuant to reserved matters.

Route 5 – Lake Alexandra is a barrier to movement between LSC and the adjacent retail parks. A bridge is sought in the draft SSADPD and it is considered that this would enable far better integration of these two zones and make a significant contribution to increasing linked trips on foot. The applicant has made a commitment to form a bridge across Alexandra Lake linking the boardwalk to Lakeside Retail Park

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

Route 5 detailed above is one of two Green Link Bridges across Alexandra Lake illustrated in both figures 39 and 40 within the draft SSADPD (p245). Whilst it may be desirable to have an additional bridge link further to the north, in light of the enhanced pedestrian link along the northern foreshore of the lake and the additional cost of a second bridge, it is considered that this would be difficult to justify in relation to the current proposal.

The figures illustrate a third bridge crossing from the eastern foreshore of the Lake, spanning the lake and West Thurrock Way before landing west of Costco (Zone C2). A bridge spanning this distance would be expensive and it is not clear how this would be compatible with the hotel development at the south end of the lake identified within various options. The primary purpose of a bridge link is to connect Zone C2 with Zones 1 and 2 north of West Thurrock Way (draft SSADPD, p190). In light of this, it is considered that the figures are illustrative and further work would need to be undertaken to ascertain the take-off and landing points within the zones either side of West Thurrock Way. The need for the bridge link would principally arise from the redevelopment of Zone C2 and as such it is not necessary in connection with this development. The applicant has agreed to use reasonable endeavours to make available an area of land which will accommodate the footings of a pedestrian footbridge to cross West Thurrock Way.

Route 6 – The draft SSADPD indicates a desire to create a pedestrian and public transport link between LSC and the Arena Essex site to the north in order to safeguard potential for complimentary uses of the land. This would involve a tunnel under the Arterial Road. In light of the current designation of Arena Essex and the nature of the proposal it would be unreasonable to expect the applicant to provide this link. The applicant is offering to provide rights of access within LSC for a future public transport and pedestrian/cycling link to land to the north of Arterial Road.

8.1.49 Thurrock Council’s Landscape consultation response set out in Section 5 of this report advises that consideration should be given to further enhancing pedestrian and cycle routes east-west and east-south through the site. Whilst this is understood, the proposals follow the link that is illustrated in Figures 39 and 40 of the draft SSADPD. The route of these linkages are peripheral and in close proximity to road infrastructure. It is considered that out with a major reconfiguration of the extension proposals little further could be reasonably be done to significantly improve these linkages. It is considered that even with the additional external linkages the internal linkages within the mall would continue to play an important role in facilitating pedestrian movement east-west. In this regard, the applicant highlights the time which the public can currently access the Mall and offers the imposition of an obligation (No.15) to maintain a route through the Mall for use by the general public at all times that buses and trains are operating at the Lakeside.

8.1.50 In light of the above, the proposal would make a significant contribution to improving pedestrian and cyclist permeability throughout LSC and connections with Zone 2, all of which are identified as Green Grid, public realm and non-vehicular links in the draft SSADPD and would be in accordance with LDF-CS Policy CSTP14 (Part1 (i) and Part 2(ii). PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.51 Bus station - The application proposes to demolish the existing bus station located immediately to the north of the main mall (currently the Debenhams end) and erect a new bus station to the east of the main mall and adjacent to the existing bridge link to Chafford Hundred Railway Station. The new bus station would provide a number of advantages over the existing, including enclosed waiting facilities, real-time bus information and a more prominent location within LSC which is a major focus of travel demand within the basin. It is also located close and would be accessible to and from the bridge to Chafford Hundred Rail Station which would ensure it acts as a public transport interchange. The external links around LSC would also ensure that it is accessible with links through the mall.

8.1.52 Personal Rapid Transit - The RSS make reference to Personal rapid transit (PRT). This is a public transportation mode featuring small automated vehicles operating on a network of specially built guide ways as featured in the Development Corporation’s Masterplan. The draft SSADPD is consulting on ‘People Mover and Personal Transport Options’. With regards PRT system the SSADPD advises;

‘The system would be extremely expensive to build and operate, and its implementation is likely to require a significant proportion of all the developer contributions that could be expected through delivery of the Plan. Owing to developer contributions needing to be prioritised towards other more essential infrastructure investment critical to delivery of acceptable and sustainable development options, this option for moving people around Lakeside is not considered feasible at this time, and a hopper bus service with scope for future development is considered a more feasible option’ (p235).

8.1.53 The SSADPD identifies a number of other potential measures including; o South Essex Rapid Transport (SERT) o Hopper bus

8.1.54 The South Essex Rapid Transport (SERT) is a dedicated passenger bus transport system aimed at linking up the main development sites within the Thames Gateway in South Essex. Whilst LDF-CS Policy CSSP3 (Sustainable Infrastructure) considers SERT essential to the delivery of the Core Strategy and CSTP14 (Transport in the Thurrock Urban Area) identifies SERT as a measure to be employed at Lakeside, there is presently some uncertainty regarding the future provision of SERT in this area. LDF CS Policy CSTP16 (National and Regional Transport Networks) Part 3 identifies the provision of a route linking Thurrock Urban Area to Basildon through SERT by 2016. The applicant has offered to make provisions, secured within the legal agreement, to establish rights of access in order to facilitate access to and from the new bus station for SERT in the event that a route to and from LSC is established. In light of the current uncertainty over the provision of SERT, it is considered that the applicant is making an appropriate response that would safeguard future provision and assist the aims of LDF- CS Policies CSSP3, CSTP14 (iv) and CSTP16 (iii) to bring SERT to the Lakeside basin.

8.1.55 Hopper Bus – A key aspect of draft SSADPD is to encourage those that do travel by car to the Lakeside Basin to then use public transport or walking as a means of travelling between the various sites rather than to use the car for these linked trips. For this strategy to be successful, the hopper bus must be perceived as being easy and attractive to use.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.56 As part of the S106 package the applicant is offering to procure the operation of the shuttle bus with a minimum capacity of 30 passengers. The applicant has had discussions with a local operator with regards to the cost, level of service and routing. The indicative route would be from the new bus station to Tesco’s via the proposed link road, through the principle internal road serving Lakeside Retail Park and the Junction retail park, southwards along Weston Avenue, before looping around London Road and Stoneness Road and returning via the same route terminating at the new bus station. This is the route detailed at Figure 35 of the draft SSADPD. The service is expected to operate two buses during the following hours during which times the interval between is not proposed to exceed 15 minutes: Mon-Sat [08.00-18.00] and at times to be agreed during Sunday and Bank Holidays.

8.1.57 The applicant is basing their offer on the basis that service would be fare paying with charges on a sliding scale dependent on length of journey and in line with existing bus fare structure. At the point of drafting this report no details have been submitted as to what the fare structure comprises and what it would cost for journeys within the Lakeside Basin. The applicant’s Cost Analysis concludes that the level of anticipated revenue combined with the subsidy would enable the service to be established and run for a period of three years, at which point it concludes that the service would be viable (RH, Further Information rec 24.02.12). The Cost Analysis concludes that a subsidy of £312,000 would be required. The applicant is offering to provide a capped fund to provide a £325,000 subsidy towards the operation of the service.

8.1.58 A hopper bus around the Lakeside Basin in the manner proposed would promote the use of more sustainable transport choices and reduce the need to travel by car, most notably for linked trips. It is also considered that it would promote movement around the basin, assisting in the creation of more integration between the various offers within the Lakeside basin and the promotion of a more cohesive place.

8.1.59 New high frequency service rail station - The proposal to develop a station at this location on the C2C Fenchurch to Grays line is long standing. It was considered through the East of England Plan Single Issue Review on Lakeside and was subsequently included in East of England Plan Policy ETG2 (2) (viii) and the Council’s Core Strategy (CSTP16 refers). The Key Area Statements in the draft SSADPD states ‘The Plan proposes the provision of a new railway station at West Thurrock…’(para 6.11, p41) and is identified as ‘Strategic Transport Scheme – Rail’ ‘TSRA3 New station West Thurrock’.

8.1.60 The GVA report (2009) to the Single Issue Review advises that a new rail station at West Thurrock is unlikely to enable significant modal shift for existing uses given its potential distance from the Shopping Centre (9.31).

8.1.61 The draft SSADPD states ‘The decision to develop a new railway station at West Thurrock will rest with Network Rail, who currently express reservations about inserting another station into the line as it would lengthen journey times. Their initial view is that there is insufficient density of development and therefore potential footfall in the catchment area of the station to justify its cost and impact on journey times’ (9.12.33, p241). Whilst the draft SSADPD contains the aspiration to create a new rail station, given the details in Chapter 9, it does not at this stage explicitly link its provision with the planned retail growth at Lakeside. The GVA report (2009) to the Single Issue Review advises that ‘Given the scale of intervention and feasibility testing required before a provision of this nature could be made within the Basin it is unlikely it could be brought PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

forward until the latter part of the Plan period (at the earliest) and therefore would not necessarily deliver the aims set out in the Single Issue Review’ (para 9.37, p93).

8.1.62 The Lakeside Basin Preliminary Infrastructure Assessment – Baseline (March 2012) states; ‘A new railway station at West Thurrock on Fenchurch Street to Shoeburyness via Grays line is a key aspiration for Lakeside Masterplan. However it is not currently supported by Network Rail and a robust business case would need to be developed to promote the proposal’ (5.6.5, p21).

8.1.63 The thrust of ETG2 Part 2 (viii) is to deliver a more sustainable pattern of movement including reduced dependence on the motor car. In light of the above, it is considered that the current lack of support by Network Rail for a new railway station at West Thurrock and the complexities of delivery mean that there is great uncertainty regarding the ability to deliver a new rail station in West Thurrock and in any event this is unlikely to be delivered in the 2019 timeframe envisaged for the retail growth at Lakeside. Having regard to the draft SSADPD, the delivery of a new rail station in West Thurrock is not envisaged to form a pre-condition upon development within the Lakeside Basin. Overall, it is considered that the proposal makes a significant contribution towards improving local accessibility including connectivity to existing public transport and improved public transport via a new bus station and hopper bus service. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal would follow the measures outlined in the draft SSADPD and would assist and not prejudice the achievement of the objectives for the Lakeside Basin detailed within Policy ETG2 Part 2 (viii).

ETG2 Part 2 (iii) promoting a high quality built environment and public realm that is more coherent, legible and integrated; ETG2 Part 3 (v) design and public realm enhancements;

8.1.64 The development within the northern part of the Lakeside basin has to date been largely organic, lacking in cohesion and principally based around accommodating car based journeys to a range of distinct retail groupings. TTGDC’s Masterplan states; ‘One of the most negative aspects of Lakeside and West Thurrock is the lack of cohesion and identity. The vehicular domination of the area and minimal coordinated public realm creates a low quality environment. Each property tends to act independently making it difficult to create an identity to the area and limiting connectivity’ (p13).

8.1.65 The RSS Panel report stated;

‘3.16 The draft Policy includes reference to the need to upgrade the image of the Thurrock area, and makes specific reference to the need for development that enhances the public realm in order to create both a unique identity and sense of place.

3.17 It is generally acknowledged that the Lakeside Basin area, whilst not wholly unattractive, lacks a real sense of identity or place. There is no civic focus, for example a civic square, while the potential benefits of its existing assets, for example the lake, are under-exploited or ignored.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

3.18 In our opinion the designation of the Basin as a Regional Centre, and a clear policy objective to enhance the public realm through the LDD process, as contained in section 2 of the modified policy submitted by Thurrock B.C., will provide the means to make significant improvement to the area’s image; will direct re-development to provide a focus for civic and cultural activities; and will encourage the exploitation of the area’s existing character assets’.

8.1.66 It is evident from the above that the RSS envisages that the LDD will provide the detail, direct development and implementation. The draft SSADPD ‘Vision Statement’ envisages; ‘The public realm at Lakeside will be radically improved, with a shift away from surface level car parking towards a linked, open high street environment utilising squares, open green space and other public realm. Car parking will be shared between town centre uses. The zones of the Lakeside basin will be outward looking, reaching beyond their boundaries and connecting with other zones to enable integration to occur across the Lakeside basin. Development will contribute to achieving a ‘green grid’ network of open spaces and green links, connecting the Mardyke valley in the north with the River Thames in the south’.

8.1.67 Given the stage that the consultation draft SSADPD has reached, there is no current LDD specifying exactly how a coherent, legible and integrated public realm will be produced within the northern part of the Lakeside Basin.

8.1.68 Urban design, townscape, visual impacts of the development as they relate to the LSC site are considered in detail in part 2 of this report. It concludes that the indicative design of the built environment shows how the development itself could achieve high quality. With regards to the public realm, the development has a number of positive aspects;  The northern extension provides an external street and square framed by shops and restaurants. This would create an externalised street and provide an attractive, albeit modest, ‘public’ space.  The bus station is proposed to be relocated adjacent to the bridge connection with Chafford Hundred Station. The lift core to the bridge is proposed to be upgraded. The bus station would be located in a more prominent location and would provide better integration with the rail station. The indicative visuals show a high standard of design for the bus station, entrance to the shopping centre and the associated public realm.  The applicant has made a commitment to seek permission for and implement a scheme to enhance the linkages and public realm along the eastern part of the mall between the proposed northern extension and the bus station. This is needed to improve the existing pedestrian links which are narrow in places, to better connect proposed spaces, enhance and provide a more coherent public realm, encourage trips on foot and reduce the dominance of car parking.  The applicant has made a commitment to form a bridge across Alexandra Lake linking the boardwalk to Lakeside Retail Park (route 5). A bridge is sought in the draft SSADPD and it is considered that this would enable far better integration of these two zones and make a significant contribution to increasing linked trips on foot.

8.1.69 Having regard to the analysis within this report; PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

 the proposed pedestrian and cycle links around the southern part of the LSC and linking to the bus station (route 3). The attractiveness of this route is compromised by its peripheral route and the proximity to and need to cross internal roads.  The indicative proposals to improve the footpath along the eastern edge of Lake Alexandra do not provide visual segregation of the path from the adjacent road infrastructure and the formation of a large engineered barrier adjacent to the lake is not considered to be an appropriate design response, albeit this matter can be addressed by condition.  The applicant advises that further public realm improvements will be undertaken, in particular in the square north of the cinema, as part of planned future leisure development.

8.1.70 The proposals would contribute to the achievement of ETG Part 2(iii) and Part 3(v). Notwithstanding this, the draft SSADPD has yet to conclude on local road access options (p232). Furthermore, there is currently no strategy in place to address the public realm within the northern part of the Lakeside Basin. Whilst the proposed development makes a limited (£100,000) contribution towards enhancing the public realm out with the application site, this needs to be considered in light of the significant commitment to and cost of on-site works, including the enhanced bus station and key linkages including the new bridge.

ETG2 Part 2 (iv) protecting and enhancing green infrastructure including the provision of further accessible natural green space to meet local standards;

8.1.71 Key elements of the Council’s Greengrid strategy are the provision of open space, promotion of biodiversity and green infrastructure such as public Rights of Way. Issues related to public realm and pedestrian and cyclist permeability throughout the area are considered above. Urban Design issues are considered in Section IV of this report.

8.1.72 In April 2006 Thurrock Council commissioned Land Use Consultants to prepare the Green Infrastructure Plan for Thurrock 2006-2011. The Green Infrastructure Plan was intended to build on the network proposed by the South Essex Greengrid. Section 5 of the Green Infrastructure Plan sets out the Green Infrastructure Opportunities within Thurrock. The ‘Thurrock Green Infrastructure Framework Plan’ Figure 4.11, ‘Local Opportunities Map1: Purfleet and West Thurrock’ details a ‘Proposed Strategic Green Links: Desired Links’ running north-south from London Road in the south, crossing Ikea and Cosco and heading north across Lake Alexandra and into the Arena Essex site. This route is purely illustrative and does not appear to have regards to certain constraints. The proposal to enhance access around Lake Alexandra and as such would assist in improving part of this strategic link.

8.1.73 LDF CS Policy CSTP18 (Green Infrastructure) seeks a net gain in green infrastructure. Part 4 relates to programmes and section (iii) states ‘Allocations for new Green Infrastructure for Lakeside will be identified in other relevant Development Plan Documents’. LDF Policy CSTP20 (Open Space) seeks the adequate provision of a range of accessible, high quality open space, particularly in areas of deficit such as the Lakeside Basin. LDF-CS Policy PMD5 (Open spaces, outdoor sports and recreational facilities) seeks open spaces, outdoor sports and recreational facilities in accordance with adopted standards as part of new developments. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.74 Section 9.13 of the draft SSADPD relates to ‘The Lakeside Green Grid’. In addition to providing non-vehicular access, recreation and biodiversity habitat, it is also proposed to address Green Space requirements arising from the anticipated residential population in Options 1 and 2. Within Zone ‘A’ (i.e. LSC) the draft SSADPD ‘Options for Lakeside by Zone’ details 100-150 residential units in Option 1 and 150-300 residential units in Option 2. It is not envisaged that Zone ‘A’ would accommodate a significant quantum of residential development. Notwithstanding this, as summarised in Table 2 below the Technical Appendices to the consultation draft Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document identifies a number of options for the provision of Open Space within and adjacent to the LSC site. The open spaces identified are designed to serve those visiting and working in Lakeside as well as providing a contribution to the provision of open space to meet the needs of the envisaged new residential population both within LSC and the wider Lakeside basin.

Table 4: Summary of sites within LSC identified as Open Space within the Technical Appendices to the consultation draft Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document (2012).

Proposed Proposed LDF SADPD Description Comment Multi‐ Open functional Space Open Parks Space (Ref) (Ref)

PGMF‐L1 PROP‐L1 Lakeside Plaza, Eastern Currently part public realm / car entrance to Lakeside Shopping parking. Location detailed. No Centre quantum allocated PGMF‐L2 PROP‐L2 Lakeside East Bank Park, north Currently landscaped area east of east bank of Alexandra Lake the lake. Location detailed. No (Options quantum allocated 1 and 2) PGMF‐L3 PROP‐L3 Alexandra Square, south east Currently public realm and bank of Alexandra Lake landscaping located between multi‐ (Options 1&2) storey car park and lake Alexandra. Location detailed. No quantum allocated PGMF‐L9 PROP‐L9 West Thurrock Water Buffer Western and northern foreshore of west and northern bank of Lake. Alexandra Lake (Options 1&2) PGMF‐L20 Lakeside Central Square, shared Currently part of West Thurrock Way vehicular access Green Space and surrounding environs. In terms replacing the central section of of CSC’s site, this includes part of the West Thurrock Way (Option 2) area south of Lake Alexandra and the southern multi‐storey car park PGMF‐L21 Lakeside Arch, a waterway and The Lakeside Arch does not currently shared non vehicular access exist. tunnel beneath the A13 connecting North Lake and Alexandra Lake (Option 1and 2) PROP‐L4 East Cliff Park, north east car Currently surface level parking park of Lakeside Shopping adjacent to A126 Centre (Options 2)

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.75 As identified in Table 4 above, there are a number of areas within LSC identified in the draft SSADPD for either ‘Proposed Multi-functional Open Space’ or ‘Proposed Open Space Parks’. Given the stage that the draft SSADPD has reached it is not currently possible to identify which will be taken forward or the quantum of open space sought.

8.1.76 The proposals include the creation of a new external street and square running east- west to the mall’s north-eastern access. Whilst this is of value for externalising the shopping centre and providing a high street environment, it is considered modest given its dimensions, position close to the entrance point and the overall scale and intensity of use of LSC.

8.1.77 The proposed development would result in the loss of an existing area of open space close to the proposed new bus station. This does not appear to be well used at present. The application proposes a modest ‘pocket garden’ to the south of the bus station. It also details the creation of an ‘arrival square’ between the car parking area and the bus station. This is illustrative to include planting, seating and public art. This area, whilst limited is size, could provide an attractive transition between the surface level car parking to the north and the entrance to the bus station.

8.1.78 Thurrock Council’s Landscape Advisor’s consultation response set out in Section 5 of this report considers that the proposal does not safeguard or enhance the quality of the Green Assets. The Landscape Advisor recommends consideration is given to making the surface car parks flanking the eastern façade an active frontage set in high quality open space. The applicant has subsequently committed to provide new or improved footpath link and public realm / landscape enhancements between the proposed northern extension and the new bus station. The illustrative details provided on the 3rd May 2012 give little in the way of analysis and include no tangible proposals. The applicant seeks to include a specification within the s106 agreement (NLP 01.06.12). It is considered that significant improvements to the public realm are needed between the northern and southern extensions and this provides an opportunity to provide a less car dominated and more pedestrian friendly environment with additional public spaces.

8.1.79 In light of the above, it is not clear at this stage what quantum of open space and green infrastructure will be sought in the final SSADPD. It would appear that the aspiration for LSC site as expressed in the draft SSADPD exceed that being advanced as part of the current application. This may in part be down to seeking to meet the needs arising from the level of housing envisaged within the wider basin, the quantum and location of which has yet to be finalised. In light of this, whilst the proposal assists in enhancing green infrastructure principally as part of public realm improvements and as such assists in meeting Policies RSS Part 2 (iv), LDF-CS CSTP18 Part 2(i) and CSTP20 objectives, it is difficult at this stage to definitively assess whether the proposal makes a proportionate contribution. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

ETG2 Part 3 (ii) an indicative scale of floorspace for each major town centre use;

8.1.80 The draft SSADPD incorporates a range of major town centre uses. This application includes a significant quantum of retailing, the upper limit floorspace across the northern part of the Lakeside Basin being limited to 50,000sq.m in the RSS and LDF-CS. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not prejudice this condition.

ETG2 Part 2 (vii) securing more sustainable movement patterns, reduced private motor vehicle dependence and complementary travel demand management measures including an area-wide travel plan; ETG2 Part 3 (vi) improved accessibility for pedestrians and by non-car modes, including the introduction of a car park charging and management regime. ETG2 Part 2 (ix) providing the necessary improvements to the local and strategic road network.

8.1.81 Given the wide ranging nature of the three parts of Policy ETG2 detailed above, in addition to assessing compliance with the above criteria this section of the report considers traffic impact, access, car parking and other transport issues.

8.1.82 Chapter D of the ES relates to ‘Transport’. Appendix D1 of the ES contains a Transport Assessment. This has been supplemented and amended with additional information.

8.1.83 Section 9 of the NPPF relates to promoting sustainable transport. Paragraph 32 states; Plans and decisions should take account of whether: ● the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; ● safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and ● improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

8.1.84 As detailed above, RSS Policy ETG2 Parts 2 (vii)(ix) and Part 3 (vi) are relevant. Other relevant RSS Policies include;  Policy T1 (Regional Transport Strategy Objectives and Outcomes)  Policy T2 (Changing Travel Behaviour)  Policy T3 (Managing Traffic Demand)  Policy T4 (Urban Transport)  Policy T8 (Local Roads)  Policy T9 (Walking, Cycling and other Non-Motorised Transport).

8.1.85 As detailed in Section 7 of this report there are a number of relevant Core Strategy Policies including;  CSSP3 (Sustainable Infrastructure)  CST14 (Transport in the Thurrock Urban Area: Purfleet to Tilbury)  CST15 (Transport in Greater Thurrock)  CST16 (National and Regional Transport Networks) PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

 CSTP18 (Green Infrastructure)  PMD8 (Parking Standards),  PMD9 (Road Network Hierarchy)  PMD10 (Transport Assessments and Travel Plans)

8.1.86 The Consultation Draft SSADPD contains a section on ‘Transport, Access and Highways’ (para 9.12, p230). It identifies the main transport and access related themes for Lakeside under five broad interrelated headings;  Road Access Strategy  Reducing Severance & Increasing Permeability  People Mover and Personal Transport Options  Parking Strategy  Rail Access Strategy (p230, para 9.12.2)

8.1.87 The two Strategic Framework Options for the Lakeside Basin advanced in the draft SSADPD have been subject to traffic modelling. The ‘Lakeside Transport Modelling Assessment‘ (SKM, 2012) has been undertaken but at the time of drafting this report has yet to be published. The ‘Thurrock Lakeside Basin Infrastructure Assessment (March 2012)’ has been published and includes a preliminary assessment of infrastructure requirements and costs for the two ‘Strategic Framework Options’ presented in the draft SSADPD.

8.1.88 Whilst the Lakeside Basin can be accessed by public transport from the Chafford Hundred rail station and by both the regional and local bus services the vast majority of people access the Lakeside Basin by car (around 85% for LSC and 95% for Zone 2). There is a lack of integration between each of the three main centres or the network of footways and cycling facilities within Lakeside Basin due to the intimidating nature of the highways, poor pedestrian environment and the distances involved in walking between areas. At present, considerable traffic build-up on both the strategic road network and the local road network within and surrounding the Lakeside Area can often be observed, particularly during retail and commuter peaks.

8.1.89 Evidence given to the RSS Single Issue Review drew attention to the unsustainable nature of the current movement patterns within the Lakeside Basin and the conflict with Government policy on climate change and transport. The RSS Panel Report states ‘We conclude that unrestricted traffic growth would be contrary to Government policy and that there is a need for actions to generate a more sustainable pattern of movement’ (para 4.11).

8.1.90 Both the RSS Single Issue Review and the LDF Core strategy (CSTP14) identify the need for growth at Lakeside to bring about more sustainable travel patterns and the use of more sustainable modes of transport, including public transport, cycling and walking. In addition to new transport infrastructure to allow more effective transport links and access into and across the area. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.91 Reducing Severance & Increasing Permeability

8.1.92 The Draft SSADPD identifies the following measures to reduce severance & increase permeability: a. walkways along contiguous development frontages; b. car free links between zones and across/around Alexandra Lake, including covered bridges; c. car free links across West Thurrock Way, including green bridges; d. Provision of a people mover system (hopper bus) and/or provision for personal electric vehicles would also contribute to this aim. (para 9.12.17, p236)

8.1.93 The analysis in Section 1 of this report considers the measures proposed to improve pedestrian and cycle permeability through the area (see consideration against ETG2 Part 2 (viii) above) including the additional footways, cycleways and bridge link. The analysis concludes that in light of the draft SSADPD the proposal would make a significant contribution to improving pedestrian and cyclist permeability through LSC and connections with Zone 2 (i.e. Lakeside Retail Park / Tesco’s), all of which are identified as Green Grid, public realm and non-vehicular links in the draft SSADPD. It is considered that subject to conditions, including requiring the provision of additional covered and secure cycle storage facilities, the proposal accords with RSS Policy T9 (Walking, Cycling and other Non-motorised transport). The proposed provision of a hopper bus would also assist in reducing severance. The above analysis also considers the extent to which the proposal externalises the retail offer and public realm improvements.

8.1.94 With regard (c) above, the catalyst for the provision of a car free link such as a bridge across West Thurrock Way is likely to be the development or redevelopment of sites south of this principle arterial route. The applicant has agreed to safeguard land to facilitate a link to over West Thurrock Way should those matters be pursued and funded as part of the development of other sites.

8.1.95 Travel demand management measures (TDM) and public transport

8.1.96 RSS Policy ETG2 Part 2 (vii) and LDF Policy CSTP14 (Part 2 (i)) (Transport in the Thurrock Urban Area) seeks to secure more sustainable movement patterns through complementary travel demand management measures (TDM). RSS Policy T3 (Managing Traffic Demand) also seeks the use of demand management measures to tackle congestion. RSS Policies T1 (Regional Transport Strategy Objectives and Outcomes) and T2 (Changing Travel Behaviour) seeks to bring about a significant change in travel behaviour, a reduction in distance travelled and a shift towards greater use of sustainable modes of transport. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.97 TDM is a general term for measures aimed at influencing travel decisions towards stated objectives. The Lakeside Basin Preliminary Infrastructure Assessment (2012) identifies the following measures as being required to support the traffic demand reductions for new traffic generated by the new land uses;

(a) A car park charging and management regime in accordance with East of England Plan Policy ETG2 and Thurrock Core Strategy Policy CSTP14, (b) A hopper bus to link the zones in the Lakeside Regional Town Centre, enabling those using the area to leave cars in one car park. The hopper bus would be provided in phases in accordance with the phased developed of the Lakeside Regional Town Centre. This measure will reduce the need for trips between the retail outlets, and reduce traffic impacts on the principal access junctions to the Lakeside development. (c) South Essex Rapid Transit (SERT) scheme has been submitted to DfT for funding. This is proposal to link Basildon to Lakeside via Grays Town Centre. The combination of improved quality service and bus priority measures will encourage a shift to Public Transport, and provide an alternative link to the train between Grays Town Centre and Lakeside. (d) If SERT does not proceed in its current form, then Bus Priority measures will be implemented along the same corridor to deliver an improved public transport link to Gray’s Town Centre and to Basildon. (e) All new development within the Lakeside Basin will require travel planning to reduce the number of car trips. (f) An area wide travel planning approach will be adopted by Thurrock Council to reduce the overall traffic demand on the local network.

8.1.98 The following considers the measures being advanced and the contribution they would make to affecting modal shift.

(b), (c) and (d) - Public Transport

8.1.99 LSC is located within an area with good accessibility to bus and train services. At present circa 5% of trips to LSC are made by train and 9% by bus. The modal split for Zone B (Lakeside retail park / Tesco’s) is substantially lower with just 0.3% by public transport. As detailed in the preceding section of this report, the new bus station would provide a number of advantages over the existing, including enclosed waiting facilities, real-time bus information and a more prominent location within LSC which is a major focus of travel demand within the basin. It is also located close and would be accessible to and from the bridge to Chafford Hundred Rail Station which would ensure it acts as a public transport interchange. The external links would also ensure that it is accessible out with links through the mall and would better integrate public transport with the wider Lakeside basin. The location of the relocated bus station accords with that envisaged in the draft SSADPD.

8.1.100 In addition to the above, the applicant has agreed to a planning obligation to facilitate the potential future expansion of the bus station by a further 3 bus stands should the need arise. The applicant has also offered to provide provisions within a legal agreement to establish rights of access in order to facilitate access to and from the new bus station for SERT in the event that a route to and from LSC is established. In light of the current uncertainty over the provision of SERT, it is considered that the applicant is making an PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

appropriate response that would safeguard future provision and assist the aims of LDF- CS Policies CSSP3 and CSTP14 (iv) to bring SERT to the Lakeside basin.

8.1.101 As detailed in the preceding section of this report, the applicant proposes to fund the establishment and running of a hopper bus service. In addition to creating a dedicated bus link from LSC to Tesco’s. Such a measure is identified in the draft SSADPD and would provide a dedicated bus link and would form the type of bus priority measure envisaged in (d) above. Having regards to Highways consultation response, a hopper bus around the Lakeside Basin in the manner proposed would promote the use of more sustainable transport choices and reduce the need to travel by car, most notably for linked trips within the Lakeside Basin. It is also considered that it would promote movement around the basin, assisting in the creation of more integration between the various offers within the Lakeside basin and promote a more cohesive place.

8.1.102 The development proposes the inclusion of a range of measures to promote of greater use of sustainable transport that accord with the relevant criteria of RSS Policies T2 (Changing Travel Behaviour), T4 (Urban Transport) and T13 (Public Transport Accessibility).

(f) - Travel Plan

8.1.103 RSS Policy ETG2 Part 2 (vii) and LDF Policy CSTP14 (Part 2 (i)) (Transport in the Thurrock Urban Area) seek to secure more sustainable movement patterns through complementary travel demand management measures (TDM) including an area-wide travel plan. The RSS Panel Report states ‘We conclude that there is a need for travel demand management measures including an area wide travel plan that applies to existing as well as new development and to the wider Lakeside Basin area’ (para 4.15). LDF Policy PMD10 (Transport Assessments and Travel Plans) also seeks travel plans.

8.1.104 Lakeside Shopping Centre has had an Employee Travel Plan in place since 2005. The applicant has submitted a Draft LSC Travel Plan (Royal Haskoning, 23rd May 2012). The aim of the LSC Travel Plan is to ‘seek an overall reduction in the number of people travelling to LSC using their private car in favour of sustainable transport modes. In doing so it seeks to raise awareness of sustainable travel modes and their uptake’ (TA, p13). The applicant is offering to enter into a legally binding Travel Plan that would cover all customers and visitors to LSC in addition to employees. The draft LSC Travel Plan identifies interim mode share targets, the final targets to be identified after Baseline modal share targets have been identified (p17). The interim targets detail that the infrastructure improvements and managerial measures are anticipated to bring about a 2.9% modal shift from car travel and a 1.1% reduction in Single Occupancy Vehicle Trips for LSC five years after the extensions opening. In addition, the travel plan highlights the positive effect of the infrastructure works undertaken by LSC on trips to adjacent land uses.

8.1.105 The measures proposed are linked to a development that would commit a significant quantum of the floorspace permissible under RSS and LDF Policy. The measures proposed and their effectiveness in terms of delivering modal shift need to be viewed in this context. The extent to which the proposals affects modal shift is considered further in this part of the report.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.106 In the event that the Travel Plan monitoring identifies that LSC is failing to meet its set targets then the LSC Travel Plan requires remedial measures. The targets would be reviewed periodically. The applicant seeks to establish a Travel Plan Monitoring Group (TPMG) to monitor the implementation of the LSC Travel Plan and review its implementation and effectiveness. The TPMG is intended to include the applicant, Thurrock Council, Highways Agency, bus operators and retailers. The applicant also envisages establishing a ‘Travel Plan Steering Group’ comprising stakeholders within the basin in order to discuss basin wide issues.

8.1.107 As detailed in the consultation section of this report Thurrock Council’s Travel Plan Co- ordinator and Thurrock Council Highways raise no objections to the Travel Plan. Securing a travel plan for the development accords with LDF Policy PMD10 (Transport Assessments and Travel Plans), point (e) of The Lakeside Basin Preliminary Infrastructure Assessment (2012) and RSS Policy T2 (Changing Travel Behaviour).

8.1.108 RSS Policy ETG2 (4) states that there should be ‘no retail expansion should be approved until the adoption of the appropriate Local Development Document and imposition of appropriate conditions to secure the objectives of paragraphs (2) and (3)’. RSS Policy ETG2 Part (2) (vii) seek an area wide travel plan for Lakeside, as does LDF Policy CSTP14 (Transport in the Thurrock Urban Area). The need for an area wide travel planning approach is also identified in The Lakeside Basin Preliminary Infrastructure Assessment (2012) (as detailed at point (f) above).

8.1.109 An area wide travel plan is likely to cover sites within the basin that can be linked in order to increase the effectiveness of individual travel plans secured as part of new developments. Area wide travel plans are wider in scope and fulfil a higher level role than site specific travel plans. An area wide travel plan can be seen as a framework document containing overarching targets / objectives and assisting in the coordination of individual travel plans and actions towards achieving the stated targets / objectives. In light of this an area wide travel plan seeks to achieve strategic aims and does not replace the need for site specific travel plans.

8.1.110 Given the stage at which the LDD has reached at present there is no Lakeside wide travel plan. The draft SSADPD does not outline how this would be achieved or identify finalised strategies and targets for the Lakeside area. It is envisaged that such detail would form part of the Lakeside Delivery & Implementation Supplementary Planning Document which would accompany the final SSADPD and as such has yet to be formulated. In light of the above, the proposal coming forward ahead of the LDD and complementary Lakeside wide travel plan is contrary to RSS Policy ETG2 and LDF Policy CSTP14.

8.1.111 The applicant’s TA states ‘Over time it is envisaged that an Area Wide Travel Plan will develop within which the Travel Plan at LSC will feed into’ (para 6.6.3, p26). The applicant is offering Thurrock Council a role monitoring the implementation of the LSC Travel Plan and reviewing its implementation and effectiveness as part of the Travel Plan Monitoring Group (TPMG). Such a role could assist in co-ordinating the LSC Travel Plan with the Area Wide Travel Plan once established. The above would require a legally binding commitment to co-ordinate the LSC Travel Plan with the area wide travel plan.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.112 LSC is a strategically important site within the Lakeside basin. Both strategic options in the draft SSADPD envisaged LSC fulfilling a critical role in delivering infrastructure and public transport interventions that would bring greater integration and promote more sustainable transport choices within the Lakeside Basin. Whilst the final option for the Lakeside Basin and specific targets for mode shift have yet to be determined, it is considered that the LSC Travel Plan and associated measures have a clear relationship with the delivery of the emerging measures to promote public transport and reduce car trips. In light of this, it is considered that the potential harm in terms of this investment not being made and the effect that this would have on the objectives for the Lakeside Basin have to be weighed against the harm arising from their not currently being an adopted LDD and associated area wide travel plan.

(a) - Car park charging and management regime

8.1.113 RSS Policy ETG2 (3)(vi) makes the attainment of Regional Centre Status conditional upon the adopted LDD providing for, inter alia, a car parking charging and a management regime. This is re-iterated in LDF CS Policy CSTP14 part 2 (iv). The rationale behind the imposition of car park charging within RSS Policy ETG2 is confirmed in paragraph 13.19d of the policy's supporting text; "Unrestricted traffic growth would threaten the economic and environmental objectives for the area. Measures are proposed which will seek to actively manage travel behaviour across the Lakeside Basin and particularly at the new Regional Centre. A new car parking and charging regime should be introduced

8.1.114 The RSS Panel Report states;

‘It was pointed out that the Thurrock Thames Gateway DC Masterplan (Figure 32) for the Lakeside Basin includes a proposal for a substantial increase in the level of parking from about 18,900 to 24,215 spaces, an increase of 29%. This seems to be acting contrary to the need for a more sustainable pattern of movement. Furthermore our attention was drawn to the fact that parking at Lakeside Basin is free whereas parking charges are made at the surrounding competing centres. One of the major problems facing efforts to achieve traffic mitigation, particularly on the strategic network, is the reduction of longer distance trips. The Sustainable Travel Towns Project only dealt with trips within the urban areas of the towns concerned and it was accepted that longer distance trips were more difficult to influence. It was acknowledged by the Highways Agency that changes in the parking regime within the Lakeside Basin could influence such trips. Participants suggested that the development proposals should be regarded as a catalyst for change, which should include a reduction in car parking supply and the imposition of charges. Evidence from the transportation assessments shows that the application of a charging regime to existing as well as additional spaces makes a considerable difference in the need to mitigate the impact of the development on the strategic and local road networks. Thurrock B.C. indicated that any policy should include an explicit objective, but should not specify detailed actions. We are aware that such measures represent a radical shift in the business model of the retail operations in the Lakeside Basin, but we note that there would be an income stream from the car park charging and consider that the current type of operation is not sustainable commercially in the long run. We PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

conclude that there is a need to introduce a car parking and management regime covering the proposed Regional Centre’ (4.16).

8.1.115 Thurrock Council’s ‘Thurrock Lakeside Basin Preliminary Infrastructure Assessment – Baseline’ Report (2012) states; ‘A car parking strategy is needed to change the attitude to car parking charges at Lakeside. It is essential pre-requisite for consideration as a town centre. The strategy would address a park and ride scheme for staff, shared car parking hubs and a phased approach to car parking charges’ (p21).

8.1.116 In light of the above, the purpose of car park management and charging is to restrict traffic growth on the strategic and local road networks and to encourage changes in travel behaviour towards more sustainable forms of transport. It is not to create a ‘level playing field’ between Lakeside and other retail locations.

8.1.117 The draft SSADPD advises; ‘The Car Parking Charging and Management Regime for Lakeside will be developed in more detail through the Lakeside Implementation & Delivery Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This SPD will be supported by an evidence base informing the spatial distribution and locations of shared car-parking hubs. The SPD will respond to any difficulties arising on private estate matters owing to the car parking strategy’ (para 9.12.28, p239). Other than reiterating the requirement for a car parking charging and management regime the draft SSADPD contains no detail of what is envisaged, deferring such matters to the Lakeside Implementation & Delivery SPD which has yet to be produced.

8.1.118 LSC currently contains c.13,000 parking spaces in a combination of surface level and multi-storey car parks. The application proposes no net loss of parking. LSC would retain a sizable proportion of the c19,000 parking spaces associated with retail uses in the Lakeside basin.

8.1.119 The applicant is not offering to introduce parking charges as part of the proposed development. As detailed in the consultation section, both the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and the London Borough of Havering representations raise objections on the basis of the application not proposing the introduction of car park charging, contrary to RSS and LDF Policy. The applicant’s Planning Statement advises;

‘4.75 CSC does not consider car park charging practical, sustainable or necessary, and is concerned that it would act to undermine rather than encourage regeneration in the Lakeside Basin, and thereby undermine underlying policy objectives.

4.76 First, this is not considered a practical option. The northern part of the Basin comprises a number of land ownerships and different types of retail offer, including retail warehouse parks and Lakeside Shopping Centre. This would make consistent application of car parking charging very difficult, or even impossible to achieve in reality. Inconsistent charging, such as charging at the Shopping Centre but not at the retail warehouse parks would only serve to seriously distort car parking patterns in the Basin, with people choosing to park where parking remains free – rather than discouraging travel by car which is its aim. Consistent application across all existing retail provision would also create significant problems, as this would require charging, for example, at the retail PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

warehouse parks. Such charging would be entirely out of kilter with the vast majority of retail parks across the country and so is very unlikely to be accepted by those operators/landowners. Indeed, those operators may choose not to participate in the regeneration of the Lakeside Basin for precisely this reason.

4.77 Secondly, the introduction of car park charging is not sustainable. It should be noted that Lakeside Shopping Centre is unique in terms of regional shopping centres in that it is situated in close proximity to Bluewater, which is approximately 10 miles away. It is important to understand that a key issue with imposing car park charges where there have been none previously is not only the cost but also the inconvenience whether actual or perceived on shoppers and other visitors. There are no controls on parking at Bluewater, and no proposals to introduce such controls. Thus, it is possible that if car park charging is introduced at Lakeside, this will have the effect of encouraging people to shop at Bluewater instead – travelling further by car and increasing unsustainable travel patterns. This would have the effect of undermining the objectives of introducing car park charging in the first place. In other words, the introduction of car park charging at Lakeside is unlikely to achieve the policy objective of encouraging a modal shift to more sustainable forms of transportation.

4.78 Thirdly, Car park charging is just one possible mechanism for deterring car usage. The Panel Report for the Single Issue Review noted that “evidence from the transport assessments shows that the application of a charging regime to existing as well as additional spaces makes a considerable difference in the need to mitigate the impact of the development on the strategic and local road networks” (Para. 4.16). CSC’s proposals are shown in the transport assessment to have a negligible affect on the strategic and local road network. The objectives of car park charging as a mechanism to deter car usage is therefore not considered necessary as part of these proposals. Furthermore, as outlined above there is a clear strategy in place to encourage modal shift away from the car to other modes. CSC is providing infrastructure through the new bus station and improved linkages, to help bring about a modal shift and encourage sustainable movement patterns’. (Planning Statement, p23-24).

8.1.120 With regards to the first point (para 4.76), the detail of the charging regime has yet to be produced. Whilst it is acknowledged that there are issues regarding deliverability, the issues raised would need to be further considered as part of the LDD. Notwithstanding this, parking charging is only likely to be secured alongside development and as such in a phased fashion. Furthermore, it is considered that the introduction of parking charging at LSC could have a catalytic effect in terms of the roll out of parking charging to other areas of the Lakeside basin.

8.1.121 With regards to the second point of the applicants agents letter (para 4.77), this does not appear to be evidenced. Detail of a charging regime has yet to be produced and as such it is not clear to what extent this would act to deter customers from visiting Lakeside or the effect that potential revenue stream would have on making public transport a more attractive offer. Furthermore, the argument does not take into account the additional cost of travel (including tolls) that would be incurred in choosing an alternative shopping destination. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.122 With regards to the third point of the applicants agents letter (para 4.78), this has been further expanded within the TA and various correspondence. The applicants ‘Response to Highway comments 11th May 2012’ provides a useful summary;

‘We have reviewed Appendix 8 of the GVA SIR (Single Issue Review) document. This provides an assumed modal shift figure arising from Travel Management Measures of 5% towards bus/rail across the Basin as a whole. The document discusses these travel demand management measures including but not limited to car park charging. This puts into context how travel demand management was being considered and this does not solely relate to parking policies. Therefore it can reasonably be assumed that parking charges would have been estimated to achieve less than a 5% shift. The Travel Plan has reviewed its modal shift target for LSC to 4% with the opportunity for the Retail Park to achieve a 1% modal shift as a consequence of the infrastructure measures that will be provided. Therefore as it relates to this application, it is our judgement that the modal shift is being dealt with by other means than car park charging’.

8.1.123 Part of the applicant’s case is that through the provision of infrastructure and management measures the proposed development is responding to the requirements of the RSS (as expressed in the SIR Panel Report) in terms of facilitating sustainable movement patterns with the overall conclusion that the level of modal shift expected to be achieved is acceptable. Consequently it is the applicant’s view that as a package of measures to provide for sustainable travel movement is proposed by the development, no additional parking is proposed by the development and that the level of additional traffic shown by the application proposals is significantly below that assumed in the Panel Review, it is not necessary to introduce a parking charge regime at Lakeside Shopping in order to achieve the level of modal shift that is required to make the development acceptable (RH letter 30.03.12).

8.1.124 The TA includes survey data of the current modes of travel. This indicates that currently 85% of visitors to LSC arrive by car, 9% by Bus, 5% by train and 1% walking. The applicant’s technical note (Feb 2012) set out the projected modal shift that may be achieved at LSC by their proposed incentive measures for visitors to change from car to other modes. The revised modal share projections from the applicants agent indicates the proposed incentive measures would give rise to a 3.25% modal shift from at LSC and a 1.1% modal shift at the adjacent retail parks, a total of 4.35%. Thurrock Council Highways consider this level of mode shift to be realistic given the measures proposed.

8.1.125 Whilst the RSS requires certain measures, including parking charging, it does not prescribe a level of modal split to be achieved to attain Regional Centre Status. The draft SSADPD does not at this stage contain modal spilt targets.

8.1.126 GVA Grimley produced a report to inform the RSS Single issue review (‘Lakeside Basin Single Issue Review – March 2009). This outlined three potential growth scenarios and assessed the capability of the Lakeside Basin to accommodate various forms and scales of growth and the potential impacts and benefits these would generate before outlining a Preferred Approach. Based on detailed testing of the Preferred Approach development quantum and indicative locations the GVA report (2009) produced a transport strategy for the study area (p103). Appendix 8 of the GVA Report (2009) includes Transport Assessment Model (TAM) Methodology. This includes a calculation of current 'base' PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

mode shares which were then manually amended to reflect anticipated future changes in the transport provision for trips to/from/within the study area. Table 2 contains ‘Key Mode Share assumptions’ (Appendix 8, p6). With regards ‘Travel demand management’ the value assigned is ‘5% shift from car to bus/rail for zones with public transport connection to study area’. Separate values were assigned for SERT and improvement to the walking / cycling environment. The transport testing section of the GVA Report (2009) advises that ‘Securing greater public transport links to the Basin and more legible route structures within it were vital to encourage a reduction in car usage, alongside the potential introduction of parking charging’ (para 8.20, p86).

8.1.127 The GVA (2009) impact testing which informed the Preferred Approach assigned a 5% model shift across the basin arising from TDM measures. Such TDM measures excluded SERT and improvement to the walking and cycle environment and as such appear to include Travel Planning and the potential introduction of car parking charging. It is not clear from the GVA report (2009) the additional quantum of mode shift assigned to the non-TDM measures envisaged (i.e. SERT, improvement to the walking and cycle environment).

8.1.128 A statement on ‘Transport and Sustainable Movement’ was produced by MVA Consultancy on behalf of EERA and presented to the EIP Single Issue Review in 2009 (hereafter referred to as the MVA EIP Statement 2009). the MVA EIP Statement 2009 advises ‘The Statement builds upon the transport analysis presented in two reports prepared by the GVA Grimley led team, namely the March 2009 Lakeside Basin Single Issue Review Agreed Final Report and the November 2008 Scoping Report’ (MVA report Matter 4/1, para 1.1). The MVA EIP Statement 2009 advises that MVA prepared a Transport Assessment Model (TAM) that is capable of providing reliable estimates of movements to/from and within the Basin area for varying development scenarios and a range of transport interventions.

8.1.129 Part 4 of the MVA EIP Statement 2009 advises an outline Transport Strategy was devised and tested with the TAM model. The individual strategy elements are summarised below;

 Mixed Use Development  Pedestrian and Cycle Links  Travel Demand Management (TDM) is a collective term for a range of measures that might include workplace travel planning, parking strategies, car sharing, personal travel planning, travel awareness campaigns, off- peak/overnight servicing and area based travel planning.  Public Transport Improvements Enhanced public transport provision has a key role to play in the delivery of more sustainable movement patterns within the Basin. Buses are currently the dominant non car mode and the concept proposals identify the need to build on the current network of services. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.130 Paragraph 4.4 of the MVA EIP Statement 2009 concludes that ‘Overall we might expect a mode shift in the range of 2-5% towards public transport for all trips as a result of a comprehensive package of improvement measures along the lines of those described above’. It is clear from the above that the projected mode shift in the range of 2-5% included parking strategies. The MVA EIP Statement 2009 goes on to consider Parking Provision and Management.

‘4.14 Parking Provision and Management The availability and cost of parking plays a significant role in influencing travel behaviour. As new development is brought forward in the Basin there is an opportunity to work towards a gradual tightening of parking standards to reduce the parking supply over time. In the right circumstances some areas of surface car parking could also be given over to development or to public realm enhancements.

4.15 As most car parks are not in public ownership the introduction of parking charges would be difficult and agreements would be required with land owners. The associated parking income could however be substantial and may act as both an incentive for change and a possible revenue stream to support more sustainable modes of travel. There are also other circumstances where charging may be appropriate; for example as part of a Workplace Travel Plan or where there is a need to deter commuter parking associated with rail heading’.

8.1.131 Part 5 of the MVA EIP Statement 2009 details ‘Future Mode Shares’. Para 5.3 concludes

‘5.3 Whilst at the headline level these future mode shares suggest a modest shift from car to non-car modes of around 4%. This represents a reduction in car based movement that amounts to some 150 trips during the course of the PM Peak Period day when compared with a future 'do nothing' scenario. In relative terms the benefits to the local environment of implementing the proposed sustainable transport strategy are therefore significant’.

8.1.132 In light of the above, the MVA EIP Statement 2009 produced on behalf of EERA indicates that for the basin study area the measures employed would give rise to a modest shift from car to non-car modes of around 4%.

8.1.133 The revised modal share projections from the applicants agent indicates the proposed incentive measures would give rise to a 3.25% modal shift from at LSC and a 1.1% modal shift at the adjacent retail parks (4.35% total). Whilst these percentages appear to be modest, this relates to the totality of development at LSC and would effect change within the wider basin. It represents the outcome of significant levels of investment and would bring about a shift in travel behaviour giving rise to many thousands of reduced trips by car. It is also effecting a level of mode shift within the range envisaged by the MVA EIP Statement 2009. In light of this, it is considered that the development without the inclusion of parking charging is making a proportionate contribution towards achieving modal shift.

8.1.134 However, the applicant’s refusal to introduce parking charging reduces the potential to affect a greater degree of modal shift. Thurrock Council Highways consultation response PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

advises that parking charging as a TDM could achieve up to a further 5% modal shift in addition to that proposed. Whilst parking charging may further influence travel behaviour and effect modal shift, the extent to which it may do would be influenced by a number of factors including the nature of the charging regime. Thurrock Council Highway’s assessment is based on judgement and is not based on empirical testing.

8.1.135 The Local Highway Authority’s consultation response concludes that; ‘In the current circumstances the applicant is unlikely to agree to the parking charging approach and consequently the opportunity afforded by the other transport incentives may be lost if the policy is rigidly applied at this time. In particular the application site is pivotal in allowing delivery of the incentive measures, by improving links between the Rail/Bus Station and the rest of the Retail Park. Without these linkages on the application site, any incentive measures envisaged within the wider area would be ineffective…….On balance, the risk of losing the package of transport incentive measures to the wider basin, outweigh the benefits of the potential parking charging scheme. Nevertheless it is recommended that there is a phased approach to a future parking charging/management regime. The basic requirement at this time would be for the applicant to agree to a future parking management regime, which could, at some point, provide data for joined up Variable Message Systems, advising drivers of parking availability in respective areas and for congestion management. Parking charging as a TDM could then be considered when the next phase of development proposals comes forward. If you are mindful to recommend this application for approval, it is recommended that this additional obligation is secured as part of any permission’.

8.1.136 In response to Highway’s consultation response the applicant’s agent highlights the passage underlined above and advises; ‘CSC agrees to participate in any such basin wide scheme coming forward in the future to address the issues raised in [Highways] response’ (22.06.12). The applicant offered to enter into a legal agreement in this regard (see Head of Term 14).

8.1.137 The Head of Term is not a commitment to the introduction of car parking charging. In the first instance it is an agreement to participate in the formulation of a Basin Wide Car Parking Management Regime (BWCPMR) and secondly, in the event that this forms part of the Lakeside LDD, to participate. Whilst there is no BWCPMR, the draft SSADPD (p239) identifies an opportunity to develop a strategy for parking at Lakeside Basin which includes consolidating car parking facilities at particular locations into shared ‘hubs’. These would be seen as car parks serving the overall Regional Town Centre rather than as individual car parks serving individual developments. The draft SSADPD envisages that people travelling by car would be encouraged to use the car park that is most conveniently located to their entry point to the Lakeside Basin and then to make onward trips using the hopper bus or on-foot. Such an approach may include the use a basin wide Variable Message Signage (VMS) system to advising travellers of route congestion and car park capacity at the various parking hubs.

8.1.138 The application proposes no net loss of car parking, albeit the ratio of floor space to parking spaces would increase which may increase the demand for the existing parking spaces. LSC would retain 13,000 parking spaces. At present, for most parts of the year there appears to be significant spare parking capacity. Whilst the proposal includes a PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

commitment to implement a car parking naming and signage strategy, given that the proposal would not reduce parking, it is considered that the current proposal would not facilitate the creation of a shared hub for parking as envisaged in the draft SSADPD. In addition, whilst the applicant is prepared to linking parking management at their site to any future Basin wide system, it is considered that the benefits of a VMS system alone would be limited principally to route management in the event that there is not a reduction of parking within the basin as part of the creation of parking hubs, which is not proposed to be secured via the current proposal.

8.1.139 Thurrock Council Highways advises that following the applicant committing to participation in a BWPMR, parking charging as a Travel Demand Measure could then be considered when the next phase of development at LSC comes forward. As detailed above, whilst the applicant has put forward a Head of Term regarding participation in a BWPMR, they have not committed to the introduction of parking charging either as part of this or any future development. The current application would commit c.60% of the additional retail floorspace permissible by RSS and LDF Policy. Given the draft nature of the SSADPD, the development plan has yet to identify the final spatial distribution of future development at LSC. At this stage there is no certainty as to the extent of future development at LSC or elsewhere and whether this would require parking charging to mitigate its impact and / or deliver additional modal shift. The RSS Panel Report states that; ‘MVA on behalf of EERA indicated that to do nothing is not sustainable and the regeneration process must be used as the catalyst for change. Without considerable mitigation of the transport impact of the proposed development, the operational efficiency of the strategic and local road networks will be compromised and the wider growth ambitions will be inhibited. We conclude that the implementation of the full range of mitigation measures must be inextricably linked to the approval of the additional development’ (4.17, p23).

8.1.140 In this instance, whilst no objections are raised to the proposal due to the impact on the operational efficiency of the local road network, it is considered that not securing parking charging as part of this development would make it difficult to secure it comprehensively, reducing the scope for parking charging to be used as a measure to affect modal shift. Notwithstanding this, in light of the above analysis it is considered that the development without the inclusion of parking charging is making a proportionate contribution towards achieving the level of modal shift envisaged by consultants advising EERA as part of the single issue review.

Strategic Road Network

8.1.141 ETG2 Part 2 requires the LDD to guide the regeneration and remodelling by (ix) ‘providing the necessary improvements to the local and strategic road network’. LDF Policy CSTP16 (National and Regional Transport Networks) seeks to deliver improvements to national and regional transport networks to ensure growth does not result in routes being over capacity.

8.1.142 The ‘Thurrock Lakeside Basin Preliminary Infrastructure Assessment - Baseline’ (2011) identifies current highway capacity issues. The draft SSADPD outlines ‘Strategic Road Options’ (p230). It advises; ‘a critical issue at Lakeside is the need to manage traffic flows at Junction 30 (J30) of the M25. This would be a requirement even if Lakeside PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

were not to be developed as a Regional Town Centre. It is important to ensure that the grown at Lakeside as a Regional Town Centre is not constrained by the capacity limitations of the Strategic Highway Network at this Junction’ (p230). The draft SSADPD identifies; (1) the interim scheme for Junction 30 to be completed by 2013 as part of the London Gateway Development, (2) the recognition by DfT of the need for longer term capacity improvement measures at J30, albeit no decision has been made as to which scheme will be advanced and when, (3) the potential for east facing slips onto the A13.

8.1.143 Given the stage the draft SSADPD has reached, no favoured option or strategy has been developed for addressing highway capacity issues arising from the totality of the planned development at Lakeside.

8.1.144 In addition to considering the impact on the strategic road network arising from the development it is relevant to consider the implications of approving a development ahead of the LDD and an appropriate strategy to deal with infrastructure including the impact of the totality of development planned at Lakeside upon the Strategic Road network.

8.1.145 The TA (Appendix D1 of the ES) assesses the increase in traffic on the strategic road network resulting from the proposed development. The TA has been supplemented by various correspondence between the applicants consultants, HA and their consultants. The TA advises;

‘Figure 14 sets out the percentage increase in traffic resulting from the proposed development. In terms of the trips on the strategic network it can be seen that traffic turning left from junction 30 onto the A13 towards LSC increases by 4.4%. This is a 0.2% increase on the off-slip as a whole.

Traffic travelling eastbound along the A13 increases by 0.75% whilst traffic travelling westbound increases by 1.21%. Traffic travelling along the off slip onto the A126 increases by 3% whilst traffic travelling along the on-slip from the A126 increases by 3.9%.

From the south vehicles exiting the A282 at junction 31 and undertaking a right turn increase by 2.2%, across the off slip as a whole this is less than a 1% increase in traffic.

For Saturdays the exercise has been undertaken looking at the impact on the main links leading to and from the M25 and this has shown a low percentage change in flow as follows and has been summarised on Figure 15. Traffic travelling along the A13 increases by up to 2.2% during the Saturday peak. Traffic travelling from the M25 to the north at Junction 30 onto the A13 increases by 4.3% for just the left hand turn manoeuvre.

Traffic travelling southbound is shown to increase by 0.4% on the A282 travelling towards the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge. Traffic travelling from the A1306 onto the A282 shows increases of 1% on the slip road onto the A282’. (TA, para 10.3.6, p48). PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.146 The TA concludes;

‘In summary, the above demonstrates that the impact of the proposed development on the strategic network is considered slight. Increases in vehicle numbers of this magnitude could be observed during the day to day fluctuations experienced on a busy strategic route. As such, it is considered that such an increase in vehicles would be imperceptible to other users’ (TA, para 10.3.1-5, p48).

8.1.147 As part of their analysis the HA have used a model employed as part of the London Gateway development to assess the impact of CSC's proposal on Junction 30 of the M25. At the time of drafting this report the HA position is that the modelling with the London Gateway interim Junction 30 works in place shows the Lakeside proposal having a material impact on Junction 30 which is already significantly over capacity. As detailed in Highways Agency’s (HA) latest consultation response (6.7.12) detailed in Section 5 of this report they area seeking mitigation. At the time of drafting this report, the applicant is considering the modelling and need for mitigation. The Highways Agency has directed that the application is not determined before 13 July to enable further discussions with the applicants.

8.1.148 At the time of drafting this report it is not possible to conclude on the issue of impact of the proposal on the strategic road network or the implications of approving this development in advance of the LDD, associated Implementation Plan which will need to incorporate a strategy to deal with the impact of the totality of development planned at Lakeside on the Strategic Road network. Members will be updated at the meeting.

Local Road network and infrastructure

8.1.149 RSS Policy T8 (Local Roads) states that Local Authorities should manage the local road network in accordance with their local transport plan objectives with the following priorities; - tackle congestion and its environmental impact, - facilitate the provision of safe and efficient public transport, walking and cycling, - provide efficient vehicle access to locations and activities requiring it, particularly in areas of growth and where regeneration is dependent on improved access, and - improve safety PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.150 The two Strategic Framework Options for the Lakeside Basin advanced in the draft SSADPD have been subject to traffic modelling. The ‘Lakeside Transport Modelling Assessment‘ (SKM, 2012) and ‘Thurrock Lakeside Basin Infrastructure Assessment (March 2012)’ identify that with the total planned quantum of development the junctions and links detailed in Table 5 below exceed practical capacity and improvements need to be considered;

Table 5: Junctions and links identified in the Thurrock Lakeside Basin Infrastructure Assessment (March 2012) as being potentially in need of improvement as a result of the totality of planned development within the Lakeside Basin as proposed within draft SSADPD.

Junctions M25 Junction 30 M25 Junction 31 Junction 7 -West Thurrock Way / Stoneness Rd/ London Rd Junction 10 - A126 / A13 (Technically these are only slip roads) Junction 13 – B186 Pilgrims Lane/A1306 Arterial Road Junction 14 - A13 / A1012 Junction 15 - A1306 / A1012 Junction 16 - A1012 Hogg Lane/Eastern Way Junction 102 - A1012 / Hogg Lane / Devonshire Rd Junction 103 - A126 / Devonshire Rd Junction 104 - A126 London Rd / Eastern Way Junction 105 - A1013 / Derby Rd A13 Link 22 - A13 (M25 – A126) London Road Link 12 - A126 London Road (Motherwell Way to West Thurrock Way) Link 13 - A126 London Road (West Thurrock Way to Devonshire Road) Link 14 - A126 London Road (Devonshire Road to Eastern Way) Link 43 - London Rd section between Weston Ave and Motherwell Way Arterial Road Link 21 – A1306 Arterial Road from Pilgrim’s Lane to A1012 Others Link 17 - A1012 Elizabeth Road Link 33/34 - Eastern Way Link 41 - Pilgrims Lane Link 42 – High Road, Stifford

(Thurrock Lakeside Basin Infrastructure Assessment (March 2012) (p23)) PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.151 As summarised in table 6 below, both of the Strategic Spatial Framework Options presented in the draft SSADPD propose reconfiguration of the internal road layout of the northern part of the Lakeside Basin to a greater or lesser extent, including realignment of the internal highway network in order to maximise the development proposals, and to support the traffic demand measures to reduce the linked trips between retail outlets by car.

Table 6: Summary of potential alterations to the highway identified in the draft SSADPD

Strategic Spatial Framework Option 1;

a) Creation of a public transport and pedestrian only link north of the lake between Zone A (LSC) and Zone B. b) Closure of Heron Way and creation of a new north south route from West Thurrock Way to Motherwell Way between Zones C1 and D1 Strategic Spatial Framework Option 2;

c) The upgrade of West Thurrock Way between the junctions with the A126 and Weston Avenue/Cygnet View to support the re-allocation of highway to bus, pedestrian and cycle modes, d) re-alignment of Weston Avenue and its junction with London Road, e) Construction of a new east west peripheral service road to the south of the study area, linking Weston Avenue to A126 West Thurrock Way, including the realignment of Eastern Avenue.

8.1.152 In addition to the above, both Strategic Spatial Framework Options identify various green links, three bridges crossing Alexandra Lake, green bridge across West Thurrock Way and a tunnel connecting Arena Essex and land adjacent Lake Alexandra. Given the stage that the draft SSADPD has reached at present there is no preferred Strategic Option or certainty as to which works will accompany that option.

8.1.153 The preceding section of this report considers that the proposal would make a significant contribution to improving local accessibility for non-car based transport throughout LSC and connections with Zone 2 (LRP), all of which are identified as Green Grid, public realm and non-vehicular links in the SSADPD. Furthermore, the applicant has agreed to safeguard land to facilitate a link to Arena Essex and a bridge over West Thurrock Way should those matters be pursued as part of the development of other sites.

8.1.154 With regards to the table above, the application proposes the creation of public transport and pedestrian / cycle only link north of the lake between Zone A (LSC) and Zone B as detailed in (a) above. This is within the applicant’s ownership. The highway works are not mutually exclusive to an option. Given the strategic significance of link (a), it is considered that this would provide an important pedestrian and public transport link between Zones ‘A’ and ‘B’ and the public transport interchange irrespective of which strategic option is pursued.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.155 With regards to the other works (b) to (e) in the table above, these are outside the applicant’s ownership or control and are likely to require varying degree of public intervention to be brought about. Whilst the proposal would not prejudice these works coming forward, this application makes a modest (£100,000) financial contribution to off- site highway / public realm works. However, the development does deliver embedded infrastructure such as the bridge and footpath links together with the new bus station, all of which form part of the infrastructure requirements identified in the draft SSADPD. In light of the conclusions in this report, it is considered that the totality of the applicant’s contribution is proportionate with the quantum of development sought and the anticipated infrastructure costs associated with the draft SSADPD Strategic Spatial Options as far as they can be ascertained at this present time.

8.1.156 With regards the impact on the local road network the TA concludes; ‘It is expected that the road network surrounding LSC will experience a degree of congestion during peak hours. The above assessments of the junctions show some arms of the junctions operating above a 90% DOS. This would seem characteristic of a busy retail centre and to the observations that have been made on site. However, the increase in vehicle numbers resulting from the proposed developments only results in a mild increase in both the DOS or RFC and average delay per vehicle.

Therefore, the predicted increases in vehicles are considered to not be material in volume and this is reflected in the results of the assessments. Whilst some increase in delay is experienced at some junctions the increase results in delays of up 32.4 seconds. Delays of this magnitude could be experienced in the day to day fluctuations in traffic volumes. As such it is our judgement that the increase in vehicles associated with the development is not severe and will only result in negligible impact on the surrounding road network and remain imperceptible to other road users’ (TA, 10.5.2-3)

8.1.157 Thurrock Council Highways advise; ‘there are a number of junctions identified in the Infrastructure Report which will be directly affected by the additional development traffic and are not directly addressed as part of the proposed infrastructure. There is the potential that a significant reduction in link car trips will arise as a result of the bridge across the lake and the northern bus link, so on this basis it is agreed that no direct mitigation is needed on these local junctions as part of this development’. Having regard to the above, the improvements / works proposed to be undertaken would promote more sustainable transport choices and Highways consider that this limits and mitigates the impacts of the development on the highway network. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.158 Notwithstanding the above, the draft SSADPD and associated modelling identify a need for wider range of transport infrastructure that that being proposed as part of this application. The Lakeside Basin Preliminary Infrastructure Report (2012) assesses the indicative infrastructure costs for both Strategic Spatial Options outlined in the draft SSADPD. The estimated infrastructure costs are detailed in Table 10 below. The table also compares this to the applicant’s assessment of s106 commitments and embedded infrastructure.

Table 10: Summary of indicative infrastructure costs for both strategic spatial options in the draft SSADPD and the applicant’s assessment of the costs of infrastructure associated with the application.

Draft SSADPD Draft SSADPD Applicants Option 1 (1-15 Option 2 (1-15 assessment** of years) years)* (£m) the cost of (£m)* measures proposed within the current

Measures application (£m) Public Transport / 11.15 11.15 10.72 Parking / Travel Demand Measures Public Realm / 8.32 6.28 4.716 Green Links Internal highway 1.16 6.5 0 network On-site highway 0.61 1.51 0 infrastructure Off-site highway 2.44 2.44 0 infrastructure TOTAL 23.68 27.88 15.41

(*figures from Lakeside Basin Preliminary Infrastructure Report (2013) – all costs are estimates subject to further refinement and testing. They exclude costs associated with addressing existing infrastructure deficits e.g. Junction 30/31 of the M25. ** Figures derived from CSC’s assessment of ‘Key infrastructure Benefits’ dated 1st June 2012 and inclusive of 15% for fees and 5% for contingency).

8.1.159 The application seeks around 60% of the retail floorspace permissible at Lakeside up to 2019. The £15.4m of infrastructure proposed equates to 55% to 65% of the estimated infrastructure costs associated with the Strategic Spatial Options in the draft SSADPD. The infrastructure benefits package does appear to be proportionate contribution towards the overall local infrastructure requirements arising from the current strategic spatial options in the draft SSADPD.

8.1.160 Given the costs principally are made up of embedded infrastructure (around £12m) there is less scope to re-distribute this towards off site highway works. In the event that this approach is considered acceptable, the cost associated with off-site highway works PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

would fall to be met by other development within the Lakeside Basin. The regeneration of the basin would be dependent upon the securing proportionate contribution from other developments.

Road Safety

8.1.161 As detailed above, RSS Policy T8 seeks an improvement in road safety. Section 2.5 of the TA deals with recorded personal injury accidents and concludes that the recorded accidents result from driver or pedestrian error with no specific deficiencies being identified with the highway network in the vicinity of LSC. Thurrock Council Highways consultation response identifies a very high incidence of rear-end shunts principally on the approaches to roundabouts / junctions and the potential for mitigation in the form of provision of anti-skid surface treatment. Furthermore, they highlight the accident record to the south of LSC crossing the West Thurrock Way dual carriageway. Notwithstanding this, Highways conclude ‘The application provides the opportunity for a future bridge link to the south and the Lake bridge will reduce traffic movements on West Thurrock Way. On balance it is considered that further mitigation is not required’. In light of Highways response, the measures proposed to improve linkages and improve public transport and reduce inter-basin car journeys mitigate the potential harm arising. Notwithstanding this, as part of the creation of a Regional town centre there will be the need to further address severance created by road infrastructure and in particular West Thurrock Way. The applicant has agreed to allow rights to land a bridge link on their land alongside West Thurrock Way.

Conclusions regarding traffic impact, access, car parking and other transport issues;

8.1.162 In light of the above;

 Reducing Severance & Increasing Permeability - The proposal would make a significant contribution to improving pedestrian and cyclist permeability through LSC and connections with Zone 2, all of which are identified as Green Grid, public realm and non-vehicular links in the draft SSADPD. It is considered that, subject to conditions, the proposal accords with the relevant criteria of RSS Policies T4 (Urban Transport) and T9 (Walking, Cycling and other Non-motorised transport). The proposed provision of a hopper bus and dedicated connection to Zone 2 would also assist in reducing severance.

 Public Transport - The proposed new bus station is in a location envisaged by the draft SSADPD and would acts as a public transport interchange. The external links would better integrate public transport with the wider Lakeside basin. The proposed establishment and running of a hopper bus service and creation of a dedicated bus link from LSC to Tesco’s measure are identified in the draft SSADPD outwith of either strategic option and would promote the use of more sustainable transport choices and reduce the need to travel by car, most notably for linked trips within the Lakeside Basin. The measures proposed would promote of greater use of sustainable transport in accordance with the relevant criteria of RSS Policies T2 (Changing Travel Behaviour), T4 (Urban Transport) and T13 (Public Transport Accessibility).

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

 Travel Plan - Securing a travel plan for the development accords with LDF Policy PMD10 (Transport Assessments and Travel Plans), point (e) of The Lakeside Basin Preliminary Infrastructure Assessment (2012) and RSS Policy T2 (Changing Travel Behaviour). The proposed development is in advance of an Area Wide Travel Plan and as such is contrary to RSS Policy ETG2 Part (2) (vii) which seek an area wide travel plan for Lakeside, as does LDF Policy CSTP14 (Transport in the Thurrock Urban Area). It is considered that the potential harm in terms of this investment not being made and the effect that this would have on the objectives for the Lakeside Basin have to be weighed against the harm arising from their not currently being an adopted LDD and associated area wide travel plan.

 Car park charging and management regime -. The revised modal share projections from the applicants agent indicates the proposed incentive measures would give rise to a 3.25% modal shift at LSC and a 1.1% modal shift at the adjacent retail parks (4.35% total). In light of the above analysis it is considered that the development without the inclusion of parking charging is making a proportionate contribution towards achieving the level of modal shift envisaged by consultants advising EERA as part of the single issue review. Whilst the Local Highway Authority considers that parking charging, in addition to the measures proposed, would give rise to greater change towards more sustainable transport choices, it is not clearly evidenced as to what effect this would have on projected mode share for LSC. .

RSS Policy ETG2 (3)(vi) makes the attainment of Regional Centre Status conditional upon the adopted LDD providing for, inter alia, a car parking charging. This is re-iterated in LDF CS Policy CSTP14 part 2 (iv). Given the quantum of the Basin’s parking supply at LSC and the floorspace sought by this development, it is considered that not securing parking charging as part of this development would make it difficult to secure it comprehensively, reducing the scope for parking charging to be used as a measure to affect modal shift.

Whilst the applicant’s commitment to participate in a future BWPMR, it is considered that the benefits of a VMS system would be limited in the event that there is not an overall reduction in the quantum of car parking within the basin, which is not proposed to be secured via the current proposal.

 Strategic Road Network – Members will be updated at the meeting.

 Local Road network and infrastructure - The improvements / works proposed to be undertaken would promote more sustainable transport choices in accordance with RSS Policies T2 and T4. Highways consider that this limits and mitigates the impacts of the development on the highway network.

The above analysis indicates that the infrastructure benefits package put forward by this application makes a proportionate contribution towards the overall local infrastructure requirements arising from the current strategic spatial options in the draft SSADPD. Given the costs principally are made up of embedded infrastructure there is little scope to re-distribute this towards off site highway works. In the event that this approach is considered acceptable, the cost associated with off-site PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

highway works would fall to be met by other development within the Lakeside Basin.

 Road Safety - In light of Highways response, the measures proposed to improve linkages and improve public transport and reduce inter-basin car journeys mitigate the potential harm arising

ETG2 Part 3 (iv) indicative thresholds for new retail floorspace, phased with required infrastructure; ETG2 Part 3 (vii) an implementation plan

8.1.163 The underlying basis of the policy approach to Lakeside Basin is an area-wide one. With regards to Part 3 (iv) and (vii) of RSS Policy ETG2, the SSADPD will need to determine what infrastructure is required, where and at what time to support the transformation and the extent to which commercial and residential development will contribute proportionately to the provision of infrastructure in that context. Notwithstanding the mixed use nature of development envisaged within the basin, the GVA report to the RSS Panel envisaged new retail development providing an essential catalyst.

8.1.164 Detailed delivery and implementation matters will be set out in an Implementation Plan which will accompany the Submission Draft Lakeside Plan. Given the stage which the SSADPD has reached, the Implementation Plan has yet to be produced and may not be finalised until 2013. Chapter 9.14 of the draft SSADPD relates to implementation. The introduction to this section states; ‘….It is the intention of the Council to provide this Implementation Plan in a Lakeside Delivery & Implementation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This section of the Lakeside Regional Town Centre Plan therefore explains the issues and options related to the delivery and phasing of the Lakeside Regional Town Centre project, including the provision of infrastructure to support the transformation of the basin.

At this early ‘issues and options’ stage, the approach to delivery that the Council will take is not fully established, and will develop further in parallel with the Lakeside options themselves. However, the Council has brought together a detailed evidence base to indicate how the Lakeside Regional Town Centre could be delivered. The approaches to delivery described below, therefore, should be considered as emerging principles in the context of the initial evidence base’ (9.14.1 – 2, p250).

8.1.165 The draft SSADPD has sought views on various options for the Lakeside Basin including the distribution of new development together with associated infrastructure and strategies. Given the stage that the draft SSADPD is at present there is no preferred Strategic Option or certainty as to what infrastructure will accompany that option. The implications of the absence of an adopted LDD and associated Implementation Plan are relevant to the consideration of the issue of prematurity which is considered in the conclusion to this report.

8.1.166 As detailed this report, the ‘Lakeside Transport Modelling Assessment‘ (SKM, 2012) and ‘Thurrock Lakeside Basin Preliminary Infrastructure Assessment (March 2012)’ set out a range of infrastructure requirements necessary to support the proposed transformation of PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

Lakeside Shopping Centre into a Regional Town Centre as articulated in the draft SSADPD. As these studies have been undertaken at issues and options stage they are likely to further evolve. Notwithstanding this, having regard to the findings of the report; (i) the proposal would make a significant contribution to improving pedestrian and cyclist permeability throughout LSC and connections with Zone 2, all of which are identified as Green Grid, public realm and non-vehicular links in the draft SSADPD and are not specific to either strategic option advanced in that document. (ii) the proposal would deliver a new bus station. The relocation of the bus station is identified in the draft SSADPD under both strategic options. (iii) The proposal would deliver a hopper bus. A hopper bus is identified in the draft SSADPD (p236) and is not specific to one or other strategic option advanced in that document. (iv) The proposal would deliver a northern bus link. The bus link is identified in the draft SSADPD (ref: LTSL1) (p237) and is not specific to one or other strategic option advanced in that document. (v) The proposal would deliver a bridge over Lake Alexandra. The requirement for a bridge(s) is identified in both strategic options presented in the draft SSADPD.

8.1.167 Whilst the SSADPD is still at Issues and Options stage, having regard to the above, much of the infrastructure associated with this application is identified in the draft SSADPD and is not specific to either strategic option presented. Whilst the SSADPD has yet to advance to preferred option stage, it would appear that much of the infrastructure associated with this application is currently seen as either desirable or essential to facilitating the creation of a Regional Town Centre.

8.1.168 The application seeks around 60% of the retail floorspace permissible at Lakeside up to 2019. The £15.4m of infrastructure proposed by way of this application equates to 55% to 65% of the estimated infrastructure costs associated with the Strategic Spatial Options in the draft SSADPD. Having regard to the analysis in this report, the infrastructure benefits package does appear to be proportionate contribution towards the overall local infrastructure requirements arising from the current strategic spatial options in the draft SSADPD. As detailed above, issues regarding the strategic road network have yet to be concluded and Members will be updated in this regard.

8.1.169 Given the costs principally are made up of embedded infrastructure (around £12m) to be delivered on-site there is less scope to re-distribute this towards other identified infrastructure. In the event that this approach is considered acceptable, the cost associated with other infrastructure would fall to be met by other development within the Lakeside Basin. The regeneration of the basin would be dependent upon the securing proportionate contribution from other developments.

8.1.170 With regards to the RSS Policy ETG2 Part 3 (vii) requirement for an implementation plan the applicant’s agent advises; ‘In view of the significance of this investment for Lakeside and the potential for regeneration in this area (see the regeneration potential section above, and the economic benefits section below) the absence of an adopted LDD (nor the lack of an implementation plan in an LDD – as required by ETG2 3 vii) should not frustrate this substantial private investment coming forward immediately’. It goes onto highlight paragraph 13 of the draft NPPF which is now paragraph 19 in the final document;

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

‘19. The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.

8.1.171 Whilst it a policy requirement to have an Implementation Plan in place and preferable to do so, it would appear that the application is making a proportionate contribution towards the overall local infrastructure requirements identified in the draft SSADPD. Furthermore, the infrastructure to be delivered is for the most part not specific to either strategic option in the draft SSADPD and as such can be seen as currently deemed to be either desirable or essential to facilitating the creation of a Regional Town Centre.

The proposals conformity with the options for the spatial allocation of floorspace in the draft SSADPD

8.1.172 Table 7 in Appendix ‘A’ compares the floorspace sought by way of the current application against that presented in the draft SSADPD for Zone ‘A’ (LSC). Whilst both options envisage LSC playing a significant role in creating a Regional Town Centre, it is clear that the quantum of comparison floor area proposed is within the maximum envisaged by Option 1 but exceeds that envisaged in Option 2 by up to 7,651 sq.m (gross). Whilst the proposal accords with the spatial allocation for Option 1, approving the development would commit 60% of the retail floor area permitted by Policy ETG2 in advance of the consideration of the draft SSADPD.

8.1.173 The development proposes 1,991sq.m of convenience goods floorspace within LSC which would accord with the spatial allocation in draft SSADPD Option 1 but would exceed that advanced in Option 2 by up to 991sq.m. As detailed above, it is considered that the proposed location of the convenience floorspace would offer certain benefits. Notwithstanding this, the proposal would commit a proportion of the finite net convenience floorspace ahead of the consideration of the draft SSADPD. Having regard to the analysis above, it is considered that the proposal would not prejudice non-retail development within LSC should the finalised SSADPD deem that to be desirable.

8.1.174 With regard Q3 - Is there a sound justification to depart from a plan-led approach embodied in the LDF and the RSS Policy requirement to have in place an appropriate LDD to deliver the economic, environmental and transport objectives for the Lakeside Basin and Regional Centre? This is considered within the conclusions to this report.

8.1.175 Conclusion to Section 1 (Development Plan context, retail impact and conformity with Policies for the Lakeside Basin)

8.1.176 With regards the sequential test, the proposal would be consistent in scale with the planned growth at Lakeside and the role this centre has in the regional structure of Town Centres as defined by RSS Policy E5. Having regard to the applicant’s impact assessment, it is considered that the proposal would not have a significantly harmful impact on other centres and accords with RSS Policy E5 and paragraphs 24-27 of the NPPF.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.177 The above provides a thorough analysis of the proposal against the objectives set out in RSS Policy ETG2, the options for how these are currently proposed to be met as expressed in the draft SSADPD and the relevant development plan policies.

8.1.177 Whilst the proposal shows general accordance with the spatial allocation in Option 1 of the draft SSADPD, having regard to the above, it is considered that the development is of a substantial scale and granting permission would predetermine decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new retail development that are being considered as part of the emerging SSADPD. Notwithstanding this, the proposal would not prejudice further non-retail development both within and outside LSC should the finalised SSADPD deem that to be desirable.

8.1.178 The indicative design of the built environment shows how the development itself could achieve high quality. With regards to the public realm, the report identifies that the development has a number of positive aspects including a new bridge across Lake Alexandra, provision of externalised street and attractive ‘public’ space, improvements around the new bus station and a commitment to make improvements between the northern and southern extensions. Whilst the proposed development does not make a contribution towards enhancing the public realm out with the application site, this needs to be considered in light of the significant commitment to on-site works.

8.1.179 It is considered that the proposal makes a significant contribution towards the objectives of improving local accessibility, reducing severance, promoting the use of more sustainable transport choices and reducing the need to travel by car. Whilst the draft SSADPD has yet to advance to preferred option stage nor is there a “Lakeside Expansion and Diversification Transport Package’ or a ‘Lakeside Implementation and Delivery’ SPD, it would appear that much of the local infrastructure associated with this application is not specific to either strategic option presented and as such is currently seen as either desirable or essential to facilitating the creation of a Regional Town Centre.

8.1.180 Having regard to the analysis in this report, the infrastructure benefits package appears to be proportionate contribution towards the overall local infrastructure requirements arising from the current strategic spatial options in the draft SSADPD. Given the costs principally are made up of embedded infrastructure there is little scope to re-distribute this towards local off site highway works. In the event that this approach is considered acceptable, the cost associated with local off-site highway works would fall to be met by other development within the Lakeside Basin.

8.1.181 The proposed development is in advance of an Area Wide Travel Plan and as such is contrary to RSS Policy ETG2 Part (2) (vii) which seek an area wide travel plan for Lakeside, as does LDF Policy CSTP14 (Transport in the Thurrock Urban Area).

8.1.182 RSS Policy ETG2 (3) (vi) makes the attainment of Regional Centre Status conditional upon the adopted LDD providing for, inter alia, car parking charging. This is re-iterated in LDF CS Policy CSTP14 part 2 (iv). Given the quantum of parking supply at LSC and the floorspace sought by this development, it is considered that not securing parking charging as part of this development would make it difficult to secure it comprehensively, reducing the scope for parking charging to be used on a basin wide basis as a measure to affect modal shift.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.1.183 The revised modal share projections from the applicants agent indicates the proposed incentive measures would give rise to a 3.25% modal shift at LSC and a 1.1% modal shift at the adjacent retail parks (4.35% total). Whilst these percentages appear to be modest, this relates to the totality of development at LSC and would effect change within the wider basin. It represents the outcome of significant levels of investment and would bring about a shift in travel behaviour giving rise to many thousands of reduced trips by car. It is also affecting a level of mode shift within the range envisaged by the MVA EIP Statement 2009. In light of this, it is considered that the development without the inclusion of parking charging is making a proportionate contribution towards achieving modal shift.

8.1.184 Whilst parking charging could potentially affect greater modal shift, albeit the degree to which is not established. Not securing parking charging on this development would restrict it’s ability to be secured on other sites or comprehensively.

8.1.185 Whilst the applicant has committed to participate in a future BWPMR, it is considered that the benefits of a VMS system would be limited in the event that there is not an overall reduction in the quantum of car parking within the basin, which is not proposed to be secured via the current proposal.

8.1.186 Local Road network and infrastructure - The improvements / works proposed to be undertaken would promote more sustainable transport choices. Thurrock Council Highways consider that the measures proposed limit and mitigates the impacts of the development on the highway network. With regards road safety, in light of Highways response, the measures proposed to improve linkages and improve public transport and reduce inter-basin car journeys mitigate the potential harm arising

8.1.187 With regards to the strategic road network, Members will be updated with regards the outcome of discussions between the HA and the applicant. At the time of drafting this report it is not possible to conclude on the issue of impact of the proposal on the strategic road network or the impact of approving this development in advance of the LDD and associated Implementation Plan. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

II. Urban design, landscape, townscape, visual impacts;

8.2 Good design is important for all types of development in all locations and is important in delivering sustainable development. The encouragement of good design is included in NPPF including Section 7 ‘Requiring good design’. With regard to the Development Plan, RSS Policy ENV7: Quality in the Built Environment states that new development should be of high quality which complements the distinctive character and best qualities of the local area and promotes urban renaissance and regeneration. RSS Policy ETG2 (Thurrock Key Centre for Development and Change) is relevant in so far as it states, inter alia; ‘(2) Local Development Documents should guide the regeneration and remodelling of the wider Lakeside Basin and West Thurrock area on sustainable mixed use lines by; iii) promoting a high quality built environment and public realm that is more coherent, legible and integrated’. The first section of this report considers the proposal against RSS and LDF-CS policies regarding the Lakeside Basin.

8.2.1 LDF-CS Policies CSTP22 (Thurrock Design) and PMD2 (Design and Layout) are also relevant. The Council’s ‘Design and Sustainability’ SPD has yet to be produced.

8.2.2 Outline planning permission is sought with all matters reserved. However, the application is accompanied by a number of parameter plans, supporting documents including a Design and Access Statement. Therefore, an assessment of the site layout and urban design issues raised by the development is possible.

8.2.3 Scale and form - The extension to the northern of the Mall (LSC1(c)) is proposed to be around a storey higher than existing buildings; however this does not cause any significant disjuncture’s of scale. The new bus station and associated retail units (LSC4 a/c) are proposed to be up to a double conventional storey height with canopy. It would be lower that the existing LSC building, but have sufficient presence due its location, scale, form and function.

8.2.4 Visual and Townscape Analysis - Chapter J of the ES contains a ‘Visual and Townscape Analysis’. The ES considers the visual effects of the proposed development from a number of key views in and around the site. The following has had regard to this assessment.

8.2.5 The proposed extension and bus station would be visible from the footbridge over the A126 (ES view 1). The southern extensions and bus station would largely be seen against the backdrop of the existing shopping mall and multi-storey car parks. The northern extension would reduce the amount of surface parking visible and increase the amount of built form. The ES considers that the overall effects on this view is ‘moderate beneficial’.

8.2.6 From Chafford Hundred train station (ES view 2) the expanse of the shopping centre’s east elevation can currently be viewed. The northern extension would be visible and would increase the amount of built form plus add some active retail frontage. This together with the creation of a direct visual link from the train station to the new bus station would enhance legibility.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.2.7 The ES considers that the extension will result in a high magnitude of change to the view experienced by motorists approaching the Centre from the north east access ramp from the A1306 (ES view 9). The north entrance tower will be obscured by the east elevation of extensions LSC2 and LSC5, new landscaping will be evident in the foreground to these plots. Pages 34 and 35 of the Design and Access Statement provide an illustrative design for the northern street and how extension LSC2 could have active retail frontages to both the new street and car parking area to the east. The indicative visuals detail a different design approach to that currently employed at the LSC. The ES considers that ‘overall, the development will result in a moderate neutral effect on this view’. It is considered that signage and active retail frontage to the eastern facade of LSC2 would be needed to ensure legibility. Such matters would need to be addressed as part of reserved matters.

8.2.8 Part of the new bus station and the northern extension would be visible from the footpath on the south side of the A1306 (ES view 3). The existing dome of the LSC would remain an identifiable landmark. The ES concludes that ‘the effect on these views would be negligible in significance and neutral in nature due to the character of the view remaining similar’.

8.2.9 The ES considers that from the A126 there would be a medium magnitude of change resulting in a negligible effect. Within the majority of the residential parts of Chafford Hundred, views are obscured by the change in level. Distant views of the LSC from the north are largely obscured due to topography, vegetation and major infrastructure.

8.2.10 Having regard to the above and the conclusions of the ES, it is considered that the proposal would not give rise to adverse landscape, townscape or visual effects and as such is not contrary to LDF-CS Policy CSTP23 (Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness). There will be residual moderate beneficial effects on townscape of the LSC area arising from the more prominent location of the bus station and the externalisation of some retail offer.

8.2.11 Site planning - At the core of the existing LSC is the mall which runs north to south between the main anchor stores. Off this central spine are several branches which form the main entrances to the LSC upon meeting the external facade. The proposal focuses development to the north of the mall (LSC1) and at two of these main entrances located on the eastern facade of the Mall (LSC2+3 to the north-east and LSC4 to the south- east).

8.2.12 The ‘Policy Context’ section of this report summarises the two Strategic Spatial Options for Lakeside detailed in the draft SSADPD. With regards Zone ‘A’ (LSC) the subject of this application, the draft SSADPD identifies the following as a ‘principles for transformation of Zone A’ (p168) which is sought irrespective of the either Strategic Spatial Framework Option; ‘Orientate development in the zone towards other zones forming Lakeside Regional Town Centre – i.e. development should look west and south’ (para 9.9.5, p170). PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.2.13 With regards Zone ‘A’ Option 1 the draft SSADPD states;

‘9.9.7 Retail extensions to the shopping centre mall itself could occur, but would be required to externalise the existing closed space as far as possible. Retail extensions would also be required to connect directly with the additional leisure, community facilities and residential development to be provided in this zone, through well designed public realm.

9.9.8 The Council’s view is residential development, ancillary leisure and community facilities in a high quality external street environment could be located where the currently underused multi-story car parking facilities are located to the north west of the Lakeside Shopping Centre. This area within the zone provides an opportunity for a mixed use development which addresses the lake side.

9.9.9 A major leisure development would be delivered in the square to the north and east of the existing cinema and a high quality hotel developed at the south end of the lake. A number of community uses would be required in the zone. These are likely to include a theatre, a police substation, community medical facilities, as well as a wider range of traditional high street services such as speciality shops, banks, restaurants/bars’.

8.2.14 The draft SSADPD expresses a view as to the location of residential, leisure and community facilities under Option 1. It is less specific regarding the location of retail development other than to seek adherence to the principle of orientation (i.e. to look west and south) and to connect directly with the other elements referred to above.

8.2.15 With regards Zone ‘A’ Option 2 the draft SSADPD states;

9.9.16 This option for Zone A reflects the ‘Expanded Core’ approach, under which both Zones A and B provide the ‘core’ town centre uses and generous links are provided between them. In Zone A an extended retail and leisure offer would focus west, towards the lake, in anticipation of the expansion of Zone B to provide additional prime retail, residential and community uses in accordance with its new status as part of the ‘core’ of the town centre. Complementary mixed use development may occur on the east side of the exiting Shopping Centre, but the principle focus would be westward towards Zone B, not eastward toward the isolated north eastern corner of the basin.

9.9.17 Retail extensions to the shopping centre mall itself could also occur with the bus station moved to the east side of the building, to form an integrated transport interchange with Chafford Hundred Railway Station, which is accessed via a pedestrian bridge, and a hopper bus serving the whole of Lakeside basin. Retail extensions to the existing mall should be externalised and promote permeability through the zone.

9.9.18 The Council’s view is that residential development, ancillary leisure and community facilities in a high quality external street environment could be developed where the currently underused multi-story car parking facilities are located to the north west of the Lakeside Shopping Centre. This area within the zone provides an opportunity for a mixed use development which addresses the lake side.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.2.16 The draft SSADPD Option 2 expresses a view that an extended retail and leisure offer should focus west towards the lake with complementary mixed use development occurring on the east side of the exiting Shopping Centre. Notwithstanding this, Option 2 identifies that retail extensions to the shopping centre mall itself could also occur with the bus station moved to the east side of the building. This would appear to allude to a northern extension to the mall. The proposed extension LSC1 accords with this indicative siting, albeit it does not principally orientate towards other zones forming Lakeside Regional Town Centre.

8.2.17 The relocation of the bus station to the south-eastern corner of LSC is supported by both Spatial Options in the draft SSADPD. The application proposes a modest element of additional retail floorspace focused around the relocated bus station, the most sizable element being the provision of convenience store. As detailed elsewhere in this report it is considered that the location of the proposed convenience floorspace would offer certain benefits including a location which can be accessed by and convenient to sustainable forms of transport. The remaining retail units proposed in the south-east are located within and front a new extension which would provide a bus passenger waiting facility and a remodelled entrance to the Mall. Whilst this element does not accord with the principle to orientate development towards other zones forming Lakeside Regional Town Centre sought in the draft SSADPD, it is considered that there is a sound rationale for having a limited amount of additional retail development in close proximity to the relocated bus station in the manner proposed.

8.2.18 Whilst extensions LSC2 and LSC3 seek to externalise the retail offer, they are sited to the east of the mall. In light of the above analysis, it is considered that the siting and orientation of these two elements are principally at odds with the draft SSADPD.

8.2.19 In response to Thurrock Council’s consultation to TTGDC of the 8th March 2012, the applicant’s agent highlights that ‘to deliver the spatial development options in the site allocations document, a variety of proposals would need to come forward over a number of years. The letter advises that ‘CSC has plans to bring forward additional leisure development along the western frontage of the shopping centre but for commercial reasons it has not been possible to bring these proposals forward at the same time as the retail extension’. The agent goes onto advise ‘It is imperative that planning policy is flexible enough to allow developers and landowners to respond appropriately and when the market allows, in order that the regeneration sought can be achieved. If too prescriptive an approach is taken, the risk is that no investment will take place’ (NLP, 12.3.12).

8.2.20 The applicant has provided an ‘Indicative Master Plan Vision’ which details the potential development of the LSC over a 5-10 year and 10-15 year period (D&A, p50-51). In addition to the development proposed by way of this application, the Vision Plans detail residential, hotel and leisure opportunities to the west of the principal Mall. Whilst these proposals do not form part of this application and are merely an expression of future potential, they highlight the opportunities on-site to orientate development in the zone towards other zones forming Lakeside Regional Town Centre.

8.2.21 Both the south-eastern and northern extensions principally focus development and associated external pedestrian realm and activity around two of the eastern external entrances to the Mall. Whilst it is considered that there is a clear rationale for the limited PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

development around the bus station, it is considered that the proposal as a whole would reinforce the sense that the eastern facade is the principle frontage to LSC. Focusing a significant amount of retail expansion and public realm improvements at the northern and north-eastern end of the LSC does not in itself aid integration of LSC with the wider northern Lakeside Basin and most notably Lakeside Retail Park and Tesco’s to the west. This focus places additional emphasis on the quality of the pedestrian and cycle links, particularly to the west. As detailed elsewhere, the proposed new cycle / footpath connections comprising routes 1 / 2 and 3 navigate around the periphery of the Mall, to varying degrees are impacted by existing road infrastructure and are not particularly legible as principle pedestrian and cycle routes.

8.2.22 Public realm - The proposed northern extension will form a direct connection into the existing mall circuit via a redesigned north-eastern entrance. The additional retail offer is either within the extended Mall or focused around a new external street and square located north-east of the Mall. The two storey extension LSC2 and part of extension LSC1 would have active retail frontages to and would define the northern boundary of the new street. The southern part of the street would be fronted by and defined by a detached one or two storey pavilion building (LSC3a). The southern part of the entrance would be framed by a two storey extension (LSC3b). The new street is detailed at 10m wide and within the siting parameters is proposed to be not less than 7m wide. The illustrative sections detail external cafe seating areas occupying part of this space. It is considered that the lower ends of the width parameters proposed would impact upon the ability of this space to accommodate seating areas on-street. Furthermore, with the potential height of the buildings (LSC3a up to 13m and LSC2 up to 17m) reducing the width below 10m could make this space feel unduly narrow. If Members are minded to approve the application, it is considered that a condition would need to be imposed requiring a minimum effective width of the street of 10m.

8.2.23 The square is framed by extensions LSC3b, LSC3a, LSC1 and LSC2. The parameters plan details that the minimum effective width of the square (east / west) at ground floor level would be 20m. LSC3b is detailed to have a projecting first floor element. The minimum width of the square at first floor level would be not less than 10m (east / west). The square would measure a minimum of 37m north / south. The applicant envisages that the square will create a public focal point beside the north east entrance of LSC. The applicant advises that the edges of the area are proposed to contain seating and the central area kept clearer to facilitate activities include various markets, performances, demonstrations and displays.

8.2.24 The pedestrian access into the square from the south is either from the car park or an existing footway which runs adjacent to surface level car parking. Whilst there is a path between the square and the central entrance to LSC, for a 60m stretch this bounds onto parking and is limited in width. The proposed extensions and relocated bus station may enhance the desire for external pedestrian movements along the eastern frontage of the Mall. As part of the current application the opportunity has not been taken to extend the public realm enhancements to the areas between the proposed northern and southern extensions and their immediate environs. Not addressing the public realm in a more comprehensive manner does not aid integration and coherence, an aim of RSS Policy ETG2 (2) (iii). The applicant has more latterly committed to produce, submit, agree and implement a scheme for public realm enhancement for the area between the proposed northern and southern extension. This is proposed to be secured via legal agreement PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

(Head of Term 3a detailed at the start of this report relates). Whilst the applicant’s indicative scheme provides little in the way of tangible details, it is considered that such a scheme would have to significantly increase the width of existing areas of public realm, enhance the existing east / west pedestrian link across the car park and provide for additional landscaping. Whilst it would have been preferable if these measures were advanced as part of the current application, the legal agreement is proposed to secure such measures albeit consideration of the detail would be deferred to a scheme to be submitted prior to occupation of any retail floorspace

8.2.25 The illustrative detail accompanying the application details a row of car parking abutting a significant proportion of the southern boundary of the proposed public square (D&A, p79, p103). This would not aid permeability or enhance the setting of the square. It is considered that his matter would need to be addressed via planning condition and the public realm enhancements secured via HoT 3a.

8.2.26 Landscape - The application is in outline form with Landscape being a reserved matter. The main landscape principles are included within the DAS. The overall principle set out on page 76 of the DAS of naturalistic planting on the boundaries with structural planting closer to the buildings. As red line of the application site does not cover the majority of the site, consideration of landscaping relate to those areas within the red line of the application site, which does not cover significant parts of the site detailed within the Landscape Strategy Illustrative Concept Plan (p76, D&A statement). Parameters Plan 6 identifies the ‘Landscape / Public Realm and vehicular access works’. With regards landscaping this principally relates to;  Areas to the east of the northern extension and proposed public square  Areas to the east and north east of the proposed bus station and associated extensions.  Areas of existing landscaping to the south of the existing southern multi-storey car parks.

8.2.27 Much of the existing site comprises built development and car parking with landscaping mainly confined to strips of tree and shrub planting around the perimeters of the site and within car parking areas. The Tree Strategy details trees on site to be retained, removed or planted. Overall the proposal would involve the removal of 178 trees and the planting of 193, a net gain of 15 trees. Thurrock Council’s Tree Officer raised no in principle objection.

8.2.28 The illustrative landscaping and tree strategy detail planting within the proposed northern public square and street. It also details a band of trees within the parking area to the south and along the eastern boundary of extensions.

8.2.29 The area defined as ‘enhanced landscaping’ to the east of the bus station includes a central area whose boundaries are defined by the existing central loop road into the site. This currently comprises maintained grass with a limited amount of landscaping. The illustrative proposals detail additional planting within this area. An area to the east of the proposed bus waiting area which currently comprises a narrow belt of landscaping and car parking is proposed to be landscaped. Whilst this would be significantly greater area than exists at present, the area is sandwiched between road infrastructure which may limit its attractiveness and ability to create the type of high quality public realm detailed in PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

the precedent images (p86, D&A). It would appear from the illustrative plan that this area would principally comprise a planting area (p84).

8.2.30 The illustrative scheme shows few opportunities to make major improvements to the landscape of the LSC site. The Landscape Consultant advises that there continues be a reliance on narrow bands of planting. The Landscape and Ecology advisor concludes ‘While some more significant landscaping is proposed on the east side of the site it is felt that overall the proposed landscape and public realm improvements are not sufficient to achieve the desired environmental improvements and provisions for increasing use of the external areas of the site’. Thurrock Council’s Landscape Advisor consultation response makes similar points.

8.2.31 Overall, it is considered that whilst the proposal contains many positive aspects, in addition to the works proposed by this application, it is considered that more comprehensive public realm improvements between the northern and southern extensions are required. This is proposed to be secured via planning obligation. Focusing development on the northern and eastern part of the Mall reinforces the existing LSC frontage and places great emphasis on what are peripheral links to assist in improving permeability and better integration with the wider Lakeside basin.

8.2.32 Design - The existing main mall building is around 650m long. Externally it is characterised by entrance towers marking pedestrian entrances to the LSC and other tower features at principle corners. The external facades area predominantly finished in yellow stock brick with red brick detailing and grey metal roof detailing to external elevations. The main mall has glazed roof lights and a distinctive central dome. With the exception of the boardwalk element fronting Alexandra Lake, the principal Mall has a strong unified design. With the exception of the frontages to principal entrances, the retail frontages are to the mall and as such are not perceivable from outside the main mall.

8.2.33 Whilst appearance is a reserved matter, the applicant has provided illustrative material which details the use of contemporary architecture. This marks a deliberate attempt to move away from the neo-traditional architecture of the existing shopping centre. The illustrative material shows use of steel, glass, metal and masonry cladding, rain screen. Some positive ideas are set out in the DAS including activated edges, articulated facades and emphasised entrances to improve legibility. However these are not manifested as definite design commitments. It is considered that the illustrative approach is sufficiently robust and reserved matters would need to build upon the details illustrated. It is considered that subject to conditions, the development is capable of delivering; a high quality design for the extensions in accordance with NPPF, the relevant criteria of RSS Policy ENV7 and LDF-CS Policy CSTP22.

8.2.34 Designing out crime and anti-social behaviour / access for wheelchair users - Essex Police request that planning conditions in relation to the following; 1) Secured by Design Certification is required on all new retail and business units; 2) The Safer Parking Award is achieved on any new car parks; 3) The new bus terminus achieves Secure by Design Certification; 4) Facilities remain or are installed to facilitate Essex Police personnel to work from whilst on duty. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

The applicant has confirmed the acceptability of the above measures and their requirement by way of planning condition(s). Subject to conditions it is considered that the proposal complies with part V of LDF-CS Policy CSTP22 which states that ‘Development must be safe and secure in its design and contribute to community safety’.

The extensions and bus station all have at grade entrances. The proposed footpaths do not contain steps. Currently Lakeside has a dedicated Shopmobility centre (i.e. offering standard and powered wheelchairs) and over 300 disabled parking spaces located in Car Park 10. This is located in close proximity to the existing bus station. The applicant has been asked to clarify the future provision in light of the relocation of the bus station to the south-east of the Mall. Members will be updated at Committee.

III. Sustainable Design

8.3 NPPF set out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Part 10 relates to ‘Meeting the challenge of climate change’. RSS Policy ENG1 (Carbon Dioxide emissions and energy performance) seeks to secure at least 10% of their energy from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources, unless this is not feasible or viable. RSS Policy ENV7 (Quality in the built environment) seeks to promote resource efficiency, more sustainable construction and reduce pollution.

8.3.1 LDF-CS Policy PMD12 (Sustainable Buildings) states; ‘Proposals for non-residential development must achieve, as a minimum, the following BREEAM standards (or equivalent), where appropriate:  BREEAM Very Good up to 2016;  BREEAM Excellent from 2016;  BREEAM Outstanding from 2019 (in addition to national standards for zero carbon). These requirements may be relaxed where the developer is able to prove that these requirements will be economically unviable, rendering development of the site undeliverable’.

8.3.2 LDF-CS Policy PMD13 (Decentralised, renewable and Low-carbon energy generation) is also relevant. Part 1 states that‘ new development of 1,000 sq metres or more of non- residential floorspace, must secure, as a minimum, the following proportions of their predicted energy from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources, unless it can be demonstrated to the Council’s satisfaction, by way of a full viability assessment, that this is not feasible or viable:  10% from 2010;  15% from 2015; and  20% from 2020.

8.3.3 LDF-CS Policy PMD14 (carbon neutral development) states that ‘The Council will require developers to demonstrate that all viable energy efficiency measures and renewable or low-carbon technology opportunities have been utilised to minimise emissions, in accordance with PMD12 and PMD 13. Thereafter: i. Any development (whether new build, conversion or renovation) that would lead to a net increase in carbon dioxide emissions, over and above existing PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

emissions for the development site, will be required to make contributions to the Thurrock Carbon Offset Fund. The net greenhouse gas emissions from the new development will be measured as tonnes per year. Financial contributions to the Thurrock Carbon Offset Fund will be based on the methodology set out in the forthcoming Developer Contributions SPD and the Design and Sustainability SPD’.

8.3.4 LDF-CS Policy CSTP25 (Addressing Climate Change) requires new development to adhere to local, regional and national targets for reducing carbon emissions. Part (ii) sets targets for CO2 emissions as an average across all sectors. CSTP26 (Renewable or low-carbon energy generation) encourages opportunities to generate energy from non- fossil fuel and low-carbon sources.

8.3.5 The application is accompanied by an Energy Statement and BREEAM Assessment. The applicant has supplemented this with an Energy Strategy Note (21.2.2012) which increases the proposed amount of energy from decentralised and renewable or low- carbon sources.

8.3.6 The BREEAM pre-assessment indicates that it would be possible to achieve BREEAM Retail ‘Very Good’ rating for the development. The pre-assessment confirms that a score of ‘Very Good’ is dependent upon tenant specification during fit-out. The BREEAM rating for the totality of the built development including fit out would need to be secured by condition. Given the intended timescale for the development a BREEAM ‘very good rating’ would meet the requirement of LDF-CS Policy PMD12 (Sustainable Buildings).

8.3.7 The Energy Statement outlines the likely building performance when compared with Part L of the Building Regulations. It goes onto detail a range of measures that are currently being assessed for inclusion in the design of the development. These include passive design measures and energy efficient plant. It also considers the appropriateness of using a range of low carbon technologies and, in summary, concludes;

Appropriate

 Air Source Heat Pumps  Photovoltaic’s

Not appropriate

 Heating systems that integrate with CHP - would be challenging where retails have their own heating systems that may not be compatible with a CHP system (para 5.2).  Combined Cooling Heat and Power (CCHP) - ‘the effective design and associated emissions saving opportunity would be very challenging to non-existent with tri- generation plant. There is a real risk that overall emissions related to cooing provision via CHHP would actually increase’ (para 5.4).  Open Loop Borehole Heat Pumps – due to complexities, uncertainty and risk.  Close Loop Heat Pumps – significant capital costs and integration far outweigh any modest theoretical savings.  Wind turbine – unsuitable due to technical, extended planning and local impact perspective. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

 Solar Thermal Hot Water System array – no additional load arising from the development  Biofuel – outlines a number of technical reasons affecting the viability of use of biofuels.

8.3.8 Part 7 of the Energy Statement identifies the CO2 emission improvements with reference to the following reference or baseline emissions;

 Total Regulated loads for the site, as assessed under Part L of the Building Regulations  Total site emissions for the entire new build development with estimates for future tenant fit-out;  Landlord - Emissions under the direct control of the landlord i.e. not including hitherto unknown retail tenant fit out plant and overall performance.

8.3.9 Table 11 below details the indicative savings referenced to the above.

Table 11 Indicative CO2 savings

CO2 savings CO2 savings (%) (tonnes CO2) Total Regulated Total site Landlord Efficiency 78 2.9% 1.7% 16.6% Measures Low and 37 1.4% 0.8% 8%* zero carbon plant (*this has been revised to 10% in the Energy Strategy Note (21.02.12). Total 115 4.3% 2.4% 24.4%* Savings (would be 26.4% having regard to the above)

8.3.10 The Energy Strategy details that the landlord has direct control over plant and equipment associated with the mall circulation areas, bus station and back of house areas. According to the Energy Strategy Note (21.02.12), the low and zero carbon technologies proposed would contribute 10% saving based on solely the landlords domain. These savings being derived from roof mounted Photovoltaic’s (approximately 671m2) and Air Source Heat Pumps.

8.3.11 The applicant’s agent advises that ‘With regard to Low/Zero Carbon technologies within the existing LSC, following further consideration it has been determined that an additional Solar Hot Water System can be integrated to serve the 3rd floor toilets of the existing mall. This will provide an additional renewable energy contribution to the overall site as well as additional renewable technology within the December 2011 Energy Strategy and BREEAM Assessment’ (NLP email 21.02.12). The figures for CO2 savings and % of energy do not take into account the contribution this would make. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.3.12 The Energy Strategy advises that retailers will be responsible for fitting out their own premises including associated roof mounted plant. The applicant advises that the landlord will actively engage with incoming tenants and their associated fit out specification and will consider further ways to encourage retail tenants to maximise their energy efficiency design and operations (p10). Whilst this is welcome, based on emissions for the entire new build development with estimates for future tenant fit-out, the low and zero carbon technologies proposed would contribute circa 0.8% CO2 saving based on total site emissions which includes an estimate for future tenant fit-out. Based on regulated loads the measures equate to c.1.4% CO2 saving. This is significantly below the 10% target of energy from decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources set out in RSS Policy ETG1 (Carbon Dioxide emissions and energy performance) and LDF- CS Policy PMD13 (Decentralised, renewable and Low-carbon energy generation).

8.3.13 Both policies have caveats that these targets may not be met where it is either not feasible or viable. In assessing the proposal against these policies the Energy Strategy (p21) refers to the assessment of the feasibility and viability of using the range of low and zero carbon technologies. The analysis shows that a range of low and zero carbon technologies have been determined by the applicant not to be viable, due to the specific layout and footprint of the site or technology incompatibility. The Energy Strategy also highlights the further net overall emission improvement arising from the part demolition and alterations to the Debenhams store. The Strategy details that having regard to the net savings from energy efficiency measures, viable low and zero carbon technology and the emission performance improvement of the demolished space represents a 27% reduction in total CO2 emissions.

8.3.14 In light of the above, the development incorporates a range of energy efficiency measures and complies with LDF-CS Policy PMD12 (Sustainable Buildings). In light of the applicant’s assessment, it is considered that many low and zero carbon technologies that are not currently feasible or viable for use within the current proposal. LDF-CS Policy CSTP26 (Renewable or low-carbon energy generation) Part (iii) states ‘The Council will promote the delivery of district energy networks in priority locations, in order to increase the proportion of energy delivered from renewable and low-carbon sources in the Borough. Priority locations will be included in the Adopted Sites Specific Allocations and Policies DPD and identified on the Proposals Map’. The draft SSADPD identifies Lakeside as a ‘Priority Locations for District Energy Networks (Ref Policy SAP27)’(p300). Page 26 of the draft SSADPD contains key messages from the appraisal of policies including;

‘The appraisal finds the preferred approach to the ‘Priority Locations for District Heating Energy’ spatial policy (Site Allocation Policy SAP27) to perform well in terms of climate change mitigation objectives; however, it is recommended that the alternative approach that is presented may perform better in terms of this objectives, whilst at the same time not being overly stringent (give financial viability considerations)’.

8.3.15 Given the stage of production of the SADPD, it is not clear what measures will be sought within the final document and the extent to which they would be feasible, viable and add to the CO2 savings identified in the current proposal. The applicant advises that ‘A future viability assessment of connecting to any regional district heating scheme, should this become available, is also committed to’ (Energy Strategy Note, 21.2.12). PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.3.16 In light of the above and the caveats in Policies ENG1 and PMD13, it is considered that an objection based on the level of energy from decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources would currently be difficult to substantiate.

IV. Flood risk, drainage, water quality and water resources;

8.4 With regard to flood risk, NPPF Part 10 and LDF-CS Policies CSTP25 (Addressing climate change), CSTP27 (Management and Reduction of Floor Risk), CSTP28 (River Thames), PMD2 (Design and layout) and PMD15 (Flood Risk Assessment) are relevant. With regards utilities, LDF-CS Policy CSTP13 is relevant.

8.4.1 In addition to stating what Local Development Document’s should do, RSS Policy WAT4 (Flood Risk Management) states that ‘the priorities are to defend existing properties from flooding and locate new development where there is little or no risk of flooding’. RSS Policy ENV1 (Green Infrastructure) states that Green infrastructure should be developed so as to maximise its biodiversity value and, as part of a package of measures, contribute to achieving carbon neutral development and flood attenuation. Revised RSS Policy RTG2 (Thurrock Key Centre for Development and Change) is also relevant in so far as sub-clause 1 promotes an urban renaissance, re-using previously developed land and making the best use of the Thames riverside to bring about substantial improvement in the quality of the urban environment. Sub-clause 2 advocates the regeneration and remodelling of the wider Lakeside Basin and West Thurrock area by protecting and enhancing green infrastructure including the provision of further accessible natural green space.

8.4.2 Chapter G of the ES considers ‘Water Resources’. The application is also accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).

8.4.3 Flood Risk - 90% of the application site is situated within EA mapped Flood Zone 3a area, being defined in PPS3 as ‘a zone comprises land assessed as having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding’. The whole of the LSC is afforded protection against the 1 in 1000 year fluvial / tidal flood event by the existing Thames flood defences whose condition is considered by the EA to be ‘fair’ to ‘good’. The FRA concludes therefore that the risk of fluvial / tidal flooding is low (4.5.3).

8.4.4 NPPF para 100 states; ‘Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere’ i.e. a Sequential Test. The LDF-CS Policy CSTP7 (Network of centres) supports the transformation of the northern part of the Lakeside basin into a new regional centre. Whilst the policy envisages achieving this through a detailed chapter and inset plan within the Site Specific Allocations and Policies DPD and the Lakeside Implementation and Delivery SPD, the vast majority of the northern part of the Lakeside basin falls within flood zone 3a. In light of the above, it is considered that the Sequential Test has been applied at a strategic level for this development and as such need not be re-applied.

8.4.5 With regard the sequential approach, within each Flood Zone new development should be directed to sites at the lowest probability of flooding from all sources as indicated by PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

the SFRA. Given the extent and condition of the defences, the Thurrock SFRA (Level 2, 2010) makes no distinction for the flood zone within the northern lakeside basin.

8.4.6 Having regard to NPPF, and Table D3 ‘Flood Risk Vulnerability and Flood Zone Compatibility, the development is ‘less vulnerable’ and as such is appropriate within Flood Zone 3a. In light of this, the Exceptions Test is not required.

8.4.7 The Environment Agency raises no objection with regard to fluvial / tidal flood risk and the applicant’s assessment. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal complies with the sequential test as and as such complies with the relevant parts of NPPF and LDF-CS Policies PMD15 (Flood Risk Assessment), CSTP25 (Addressing climate change), CSTP27 (Management and Reduction of Floor Risk).

8.4.8 Surface Water drainage - Alexandra Lake already serves as the primary SuDS for LSC, receiving runoff via a complex drainage network. The lake is also groundwater fed. Levels in the lake are maintained using a gravity outfall in conjunction with a pumping station (G4.5). It is intended that surface water runoff from the proposed development will be discharged, under control, to Alexandra Lake. The ES concludes that the runoff rates and volumes post development are slightly lower compared to the existing situation due to an increase in soft landscaping (G5.17). It is considered that this approach accords with RSS Policy ENV1 (Green Infrastructure). However, to have regard to climate change leading to increase rainfall intensity the development proposes to adopt the following measures to maintain the rate and volume of discharge;  Inclusion of appropriate SuDS within the development, through the provision of sub-surface attenuation tanks serving the Northern Extension and the new Bus Station areas;  Specification of water efficient sanitary ware in all buildings; and  Adoption of water-use minimisation and recycling measures for all construction works.

8.4.9 The ES details how the former uses of the site have left a legacy of contaminated and potentially contaminated soils in areas across the site and that the use of infiltration SuDS devices is not deemed appropriate in order to safeguard the underlying Principal Aquifer (G6.22). The ES goes onto detail the SUDS strategy for the site which includes attenuation for surface water in the form of online storage (e.g. tanks or oversized pipes). The use of SUDS accords with RSS Policy WAT4 (Flood Risk Management) and LDF-CS Policies CSTP25 (Addressing climate change) and PMD15 (Flood Risk Assessment)

8.4.10 The ES concludes that ‘As a consequence of the proposal, the rate of surface water discharge from the site will be reduced to less than the current Brownfield rate and the quantity of runoff generated from the site will not increase as a result of climate change induced increases in peak rainfall events over the lifetime of the development. The residual effect of the proposed development on the volume and rate of surface runoff generated is, therefore, deemed to be at a local level, long-term and of minor beneficial significance’.

8.4.11 The EA has no record of historical groundwater flooding in the immediate vicinity of the site. Local dewatering activities are used as a means of controlling groundwater emergence in the vicinity of the LSC. The ES concludes that ‘As long as the pumping PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

plant is maintained adequately, the risk of groundwater emergence within the vicinity of the proposed development is considered low, particularly as the majority of the site will be covered by impermeable hardstanding. As such, the residual risk from groundwater emergence is deemed to be at a local level, long-term and of minor adverse significance’.

The Environment Agency raises no objection with regards to the proposed measures set out within the application.

8.4.12 Foul drainage - The ES anticipates that the proposed development could lead to an increase in foul water discharges from the site. The ES concludes that ‘The developer will augment the existing sewer infrastructure. In accordance with Building Regulations Part G, it is also anticipated that low water consumption appliances (low-flow taps and white goods) will be introduced throughout the proposed development, which will minimise foul water discharges. Following the introduction of these measures, the residual impact of the proposed development on the local sewerage infrastructure is deemed to be at a local level, long-term and of minor adverse significance’ (G7.7).

8.4.13 Water quality and water resources - With regards water resources, Essex & Suffolk Water raised no objections. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal conforms with the relevant criteria of LDF Policy CSTP13.

Part G of the ES considered the potential effects of demolition / construction on drainage and water quality. The ES concludes that subject to suitable control the residual effect on surface water and groundwater bodies is ‘neutral / negligible’. The Environment Agency raises no objection with regards to the proposed measures set out within the application. Subject to the imposition of condition including securing a CEMP, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable.

V. Ground conditions, contamination and remediation;

8.5 LDF-CS Policy PMD1 (Minimising pollution and impacts on amenity) is relevant. The site is located on Chalk Bedrock designated as Principal Aquifer. It is part situated within a Groundwater Source Protection Zone 2 (SPZ 2) and part within a SPZ 3. There is also surface water in close proximity.

8.5.1 Chapter H of the ES considers ‘Ground Conditions’. The ES identifies that ‘after quarrying activities ceased the quarry was used as a landfill and substantial volumes of mixed and commercial waste were deposited across the site notably used as a batter against the quarry cliff faces to the immediate north and east of the site’ (H4.8). It goes onto state that with some exceptions, during the construction of the shopping centre much of the landfilled material was removed and ground levels were raised using ‘clean’ imported material. The ES reviews previous site investigations including the results of ongoing monitoring of water quality in Alexandra Lake and ground gas concentrations in a series of boreholes around LSC. The ES assesses the potential impacts resulting from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed development and sets out mitigation measures. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.5.2 The ES details how the demolition and construction phase will employ a series of measures to mitigate the potential impacts of the development. Such measures include a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP), a preliminary draft of which is supplied (Appendix H5 to the ES). This includes measures to reduce, reuse, recycle and appropriate disposal of waste. Securing a SWMP and the associated measures accords with RSS Policy WM6 (Waste Management in development) and LDF Policy CSTP29. Due to the ground conditions, the application proposal to dispose of excavation arisings off-site. The development would employ a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) that would be updated having regards to the findings of further intrusive site investigation and geotechnical work. The ES proposes further site investigations and outlines measures that can be employed to address a range of matters including ground gas and ground conditions. The ES concludes that during the demolition and construction phase, subject to the proposed mitigation measures, the residual effects range from ‘minor adverse’ to ‘negligible’.

8.5.3 The ES proposes a number of measures to mitigate impacts upon the completed development, including ground gas protection measures and suitable drainage systems. The ES concludes that the residual effects are ‘negligible’.

8.5.4 With regards contaminated land, Thurrock Council EHO’s consultation response raises no concerns regarding the findings and recommends securing the mitigation measures outlined in the ES. The Environment Agency raises no objection subject to securing the mitigation measures and suggests a number of conditions in this regard. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal accords with the relevant criteria of LDF-CS Policy PMD1.

VI. Noise and air quality

8.6 RSS Policy ENV7 states that new development should ’Reduce pollution, including emissions, noise and light pollution’. LDF-CS Policy PMD1 (Minimising pollution and impacts on amenity) is relevant and starts that developments will not be permitted where they would cause unacceptable effects on the amenities of the area, the amenity of neighbouring occupants or the amenity of future occupiers of the site. LDF-CS Policy PMD9 (Road Network Hierarchy) indicates that developments will only be permitted where measures have been taken to mitigate all adverse air quality impacts in or adjacent to AQMAs and where the development will minimise the impacts on the quality of life of local residents, such as noise, air pollution, and the general street environment.

8.6.1 Air Quality - Chapter E of the ES considers ‘Air Quality’. With regards the construction phase, the ES advises that a CEMP will be produced to minimise the impact of dust and particulates.

8.6.2 The ES models the impact of the development at four sensitive receptors (SR1 - Trelawny Place located south of the Arterial Road, SR2 – Gower Place, Chafford Hundred, SR3 – Grenville Road, Chafford Hundred and SR4 - at the roundabout south of LSC). The ES concludes that the impact on air quality at these sensitive receptors post development is ‘imperceptible’ and as such ‘negligible’ for the purposes of the ES (para PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

E5.11). The ES goes onto state that ‘further reductions in vehicular emissions and associated localised pollution should be achieved through the adoption of strategic and sustainable transport practices and the LSC Travel Plan. Such measures will encourage the residents and workers of the proposed development to use more sustainable transport modes’ (E6.7).

8.6.3 LDF Policy PMD9 states that ‘The development will minimise adverse impacts on the quality of life of local residents, such as noise, air pollution, and the general street environment’. Thurrock Council EHO raises no issue with regards to the ES and raises no objection on the grounds of air quality. Having regard to the above and the findings of the ES it is considered that subject to conditions, the demolition and construction phase should not unduly impact upon air quality. Furthermore, the emissions from the operational aspects of the development will result in negligible impacts on local air quality and as such comply with LDF Policy PMD9

8.6.4 RSS Policy ENV7 states that new development should ’Reduce pollution, including emissions, noise and light pollution’. This is a more stringent test than that of LDF Policy PMD9. Having regard to the 2016 baseline traffic conditions, the data accompanying the application predicts a rise in car borne traffic post development (E3.1). Consideration of the extent to which the development would bring about modal shift and more sustainable movement patterns is considered in Section 1 of the analysis contained in this report. Given the evidence presented to the RSS Single Issue Review regarding modal shift, it would appear that even with the measures proposed to promote more sustainable transport choices it was accepted that the planned growth at Lakeside would not give rise to a net reduction in car borne traffic. In light of the above, it is considered that an objection based on RSS Policy ENV7 could not be sustained.

8.6.5 Noise - Chapter F of the ES considers ‘Noise’. The ES has been informed by a noise survey undertaken at four locations, one within the site and the remainder at locations in Chafford Hundred.

8.6.6 With regards construction noise, the ES predicts a neutral / negligible noise impact at the noise sensitive receptors (F6.1). The ES sets out a number of noise mitigation measures including limits on working hours and the production of a CEMP. Thurrock Council’s EHO is in general agreement with the conclusions and recommends securing the mitigation proposed.

8.6.7 With regards external plant noise emissions, the ES advises that it will be necessary to specify a noise limit for the plant associated with each retail tenancy (F6.1). The residual effect is considered ‘neutral / negligible’. Thurrock Council’s EHO recommends a condition requiring the developer submit to and agree with the LPA a scheme of soundproofing for roof mounted plant and machinery, including the individual emission limits proposed for each tenant.

8.6.8 With regards traffic noise, the ES predicts a neutral / negligible noise impact on all surrounding rounds and as such considers mitigation unnecessary (F6.3).

8.6.9 Thurrock Council’s EHO advises that ‘Overall the conclusions of the report are accepted and, subject to appropriate conditions, there is no reason why noise should be an issue PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

for the development’. In light of the above and subject to conditions, it is not considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the noise environment and sensitive receptors and as such complies with PPS24 and the relevant criteria of LDF- CS Policies PMD1 and PMD9.

RSS Policy ENV7 states that new development should ’Reduce pollution, including emissions, noise and light pollution’. This is a more stringent test than that of LDF Policies PMD1 and 9. With regards noise, in light of the lack of identifiable harm to matters of acknowledged interest, it is considered that an objection based upon the proposal not giving rise to a reduction in the noise environment would be very difficult to sustain.

VII. Effects upon ecology and nature conservation

8.7 Part 11 of the NPPF relates to ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’. RSS Policy ENV3 (Biodiversity and Earth Heritage) and LDF-CS Policies CSTP19 (Biodiversity) and PMD7 (Biodiversity and development) are relevant. The contribution of the proposal to the creation of green Infrastructure and linkages are considered elsewhere in this report.

8.7.1 Chapter K of the ES considers ecology. It assesses the baseline conditions before describing the potential effects of the proposal on ecological assets both during construction and operation of the buildings. The ES considers that no habitat of significant ecological value will be directly affected by the proposals, the majority of the site having already been developed. Whilst generally of low magnitude, the ES identifies a number of impacts of both the construction and operation of the building that will result in negative impacts on ecological value on the site and the wider locale. The ES describes the mitigation measures to be put in place. These include dust and noise abatement during demolition and construction, restrictions on the volume of chemicals, fuel and concrete used and the protection of surface water drains and the appropriate timing of works to minimise disturbance to wildlife. With the mitigation measures in place the ES assesses the impacts as having a neutral/negligible effect on local wildlife. The ES adds that the development will introduce new areas of habitats with greater ecological diversity than the current proposed development. The overall conclusion being that the proposal will have a minor positive impact on ecological value, provided suitable mitigation is undertaken within the construction and operational phases of the scheme.

8.7.2 Natural England advises that the proposal does not affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes, or have significant impacts on the conservation of soils. Given their remit, Natural England has not commented on the details of the proposal. The Development Corporation’s Specialist advisor agrees with the ecological assessment report that the site has limited ecological value. The Environment Agency raise no objections in relation to aquatic ecology issues subject to securing the mitigation outlined in the ES.

8.7.3 The proposal details the removal of trees and new landscaping that would give rise to a net increase in the number of trees. Thurrock Council’s Tree Officer raises no objection in this regard.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.7.4 Having regard to the above, it is considered that subject to suitable controls the construction would seek to prevent harm and have a negligible effect on ecology. The site is for the most part already developed and the proposal would introduce new areas of habitat which would make a positive, albeit limited, contribution to local wildlife habitat. With regards ecology and nature conservation it is considered that the proposal conforms with Part 11 of the NPPF, the relevant parts of RSS Policy ENV3 (Biodiversity and Earth Heritage)(criteria 1), the overall objective of LDF-CS Policy CSTP19 (Biodiversity) to ‘contribute positively to the overall biodiversity of the Borough’ (p133) and Policy PMD7 (Biodiversity and development).

VIII. Phasing and Impact of construction

8.8 RSS Policy EN7: Quality in the built environment’ states that new development should ‘reduce pollution, including emissions, noise and light pollution’. LDF-CS Policies CSTP6 (Strategic Employment Provision), PMD1 (Minimising pollution and impacts on amenity) and PMD12 (Sustainable Buildings) are also relevant.

8.8.1 Section C (Site Description and Proposals) of the ES includes details of construction and phasing. The ES (c4.7) provides an outline construction programme (appendix C2), an indication of key phases of the development and broad timescales. The programme for the works envisages that construction will take approximately 36 months. Assuming a likely start of January 2013 completion would be scheduled for November 2015. Following tenant fit-out of the units, the development is envisaged to open in 2016 (ES, Para C4.5).  Phase 1 Development Enabling Works: 8 months (e.g. October 2012 – May 2013) (to include creation of temporary bus station)  Phase 2 Construction of new Department Store: 14 months (e.g. May 2013 - July 2014). (the new extension part of LSC1)  Phase 3 Construction of Multi-Storey Car Park: 8 months (e.g. May 2014 - January 2015); and Retail Units: 10 months (e.g. May 2014 - March 2015). (LSC5, LSC2, LSC3a and LSC3b)  Phase 4a New bus Station: 5 months (e.g. May 2013 - October 2013). (including LSC4c)  Phase 4b Retail Units: 9 months (e.g. June 2013 - February 2014). (LSC4a and LSC4b)  Phase 5 Mall Retail Units: 5 months (e.g. March 2015 - August 2015). (Part of LSC1 comprising the works to what is at present Debenhams to create the new shop units and extension to the central mail). The applicant advises that at the completion of the new department store (Phase 2), a temporary mail will be constructed through what is presently the Debenhams store – creating a pedestrian link between the existing mall and the new department store. This link will remain in place for 5 months whilst this part of the building is altered to create the extension to the central mall and associated shops.  Project completion - November 2015.

8.8.2 The preferred principal site construction compound including site offices, changing facilities, contractor’s car parking and material consolidation area is detailed to be located off-site in the existing CSC coach park in Pilgrim’s Lane. The ES envisages a satellite site compound on the northern part of car park 5 within the LSC complex, PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

principally for storage of materials imminently required for the works, canteen, toilet facilities and site office. Individual sites within the LSC are also proposed to have on-site compounds containing facilities specific to that site.

8.8.3 With regards the transportation of materials, the ES envisages a maximum of 80 heavy good vehicle trips to and from the site per day (c4.64). Some of which would go directly to site. The application is also accompanied by a plan detailing that preferred route to and from the site to the Pilgrims Lane Coach park for construction traffic via the Arterial Road (A1306) and the northern spiral access into LSC. Thurrock Council Highways advise that ‘there are some acute traffic capacity problems on the Pilgrims Lane approach to the A1306 roundabout. The TA at Para 9.3.12 indicates that the impacts associated with construction workers are likely to be negligible. Notwithstanding the consented use of the Pilgrims Lane site, it is unlikely that significant departures can be accommodated on Pilgrims Lane without some form of mitigation. The vehicle departure rate could of course be regulated to minimise impact at this location, alternatively there is an opportunity to slightly widen the south-bound approach to the A1306 roundabout, to improve capacity. Given the impact it relatively short-lived, the former would probably be a more reasonable solution. Deliveries should be via the Lakeside spiral access, rather than via Fenner Road’.

8.8.4 With regards to the use of the Pilgrims Lane site, this does not form part of the current application and furthermore forms part of the Green Belt. The use of the existing coach park would not constitute Permitted Development as the site is not adjoining the LSC site. A separate planning permission would be needed to enable the temporary use of the Pilgrims Lane site as a construction compound in connection with the proposed extension of LSC. The applicant’s agent advises that such an application would be made in due course.

8.8.5 The ES (Section C5.21) also considers two potential alternative locations for the main construction compound being LSC Car Parks 7 and 8 located in the North Eastern corner of the LSC. The ES considers the impact of these alternative locations (c5.23). It concludes that construction noise and air quality impacts would remain unchanged from that of the preferred option. The ES concludes that the Pilgrims Lane site is a better solution from an operational and ES perspective due to it not giving rise to loss of car parking in the LSC site, minimising congestion on the local road network around LSC, ability of the site to accept several HGV’s at a time.

8.8.6 In light of the above, due to its Green Belt status, there is a presumption against the use of the Pilgrims Lane site. Furthermore, there are traffic capacity issues on the Pilgrims Lane approach to the A1306 roundabout that would need to be addressed. Whilst there is uncertainty regarding the applicants favoured approach of using Pilgrims Lane, it is considered that the two potential alternative locations are feasible. With regards construction traffic routing to and from the site, the Arterial Road Route as proposed is less congested and more remote from sensitive receptors than a route involving Fenner Road.

8.8.7 The applicant advises that the Principal Contractor appointed will join the Considerate Constructor Scheme and that a Good Neighbour Policy be developed. Issues regarding noise and air quality during and after construction are considered in section (VII) of this report. No objections are raised in this regard. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

8.8.8 LDF-CS Policy PMD12 (Sustainable Buildings) requires developers to submit details of how the development will ‘Minimise waste and maximise recycling during construction and after completion’. The ES advises that ‘a Site Waste Management Plan will be produced for the pre-construction and construction phases of the project to control the handling and disposal of waste’ (C4.77). It is considered that a SWMP is an appropriate tool to secure the objectives of minimise waste and maximise recycling during construction and can be secured by way of planning condition.

8.8.9 The ES includes an outline Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) and advises that a detailed overall site CEMP will be produced as part of the detailed submission for reserve matters (c4.80). Furthermore, a Site specific CEMP’s in accordance with the Overall Site CEMP will then be agreed for each phase or stage. Areas to be dealt with within the CEMP’s include air quality, ecology, ground conditions and contamination, noise & vibration, water environment. This can be secured by way of a pre-commencement planning condition and will be important to avoid, minimise and mitigate any construction effects on the environment, surrounding residential communities, the existing shopping centre and other users within the Lakeside Basin

8.8.10 Subject to conditions securing a CEMP and having regard to the consultation responses of Thurrock Council Highways and Environmental Health, it is considered that adequate control can be exercised to ensure that the construction phase utilising either of the principal compounds detailed does not cause an unacceptable effect on the amenities of the area including other operators with in the basin. In light of this, it is considered that the proposal accords with LDF Policy PMD1 (Minimising pollution and impacts on amenity).

8.8.11 Part 10 of LDF-CS Policy CSTP6 (Strategic Employment Provision) relates to ‘Skills and Local Employment Opportunities’. It states ‘The Council will work with partners and developers to enhance the knowledge and skills and local employment opportunities for residents including the promotion of local labour and training agreements on major construction projects. The Council will utilise Section 106 obligations to further the objectives of this policy’. The ES states that ‘CSC are committed to providing measures for such local employment and training support, recognising the benefits this can provide to the local area’ (ES, Part i, para16.4). A head of term is proposed in this regard. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

IX. Socio-economic effects

8.9 The Plan for Growth (March 2011) sets out the Government’s economic policy objectives to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth. NPPF advises that here are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental (para 7). Para 8 advises that ‘to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system’.

8.9.1 The East of England Plan (RSS14) was adopted in May 2008 and covers the period to 2021. Objective iii of the RSS is to realise the economic potential of the region and its people through facilitating development, providing for job growth, maintaining and strengthening inter-regional connections and ensuring sustainable infrastructure. Relevant policies include:- • Policy E1 targets a 55,000 net growth in jobs between 2001-2021 in the Essex Thames Gateway (which includes Thurrock); • Policy E2 states that Local Development Documents should ensure sufficient land for employment use is provided, including mixed and town centre uses; • Policy E3 identifies Thurrock Urban Area as a focus for strategic employment sites; and • Policy ETG1 seeks to increase the number of jobs and value of the sub regional economy in the Essex Thames Gateway. • Policy ETG2 (as revised) identifies Thurrock urban area as a Key Centre for Development and Change. It sets out policy for retail expansion at the Lakeside basin.

8.9.2 The LDF-CS contains a number of relevant policies including;  CSSP2 – Sustainable employment growth;  CSTP6 – Strategic employment provision;  CSTP7 – Network of centres;  CSTP8 – Vitality and viability of existing centres

8.9.3 Chapter I of the ES assesses the ‘Socio-Economic Effects’ of the development, in particular:- 1. how the proposed development is likely to impact upon employment during its construction and operation in terms of the number, type and status of jobs in the local labour market; 2. the identification of any ‘spin off’ effects of the proposed development in terms of stimulating investment or other economic activity; 3. assessment of potential impacts on commuting flows using current and future employment trends; and 4. consideration of the wider benefit to the community that the new retail facilities will provide.

8.9.4 Section 14 of the ES sets out the baseline conditions, including the economic context, existing socio-economic impacts of the development site and its surroundings. The ES highlights that the West Thurrock and South Stifford wards display high levels of deprivation. Furthermore it examines Local Labour Market Conditions, identifying the PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

relatively high level of local claimant unemployment and low-skills base. It goes onto identify existing direct and indirect employment at LSC.

8.9.5 Section 15 of the ES identifies and assesses the scale and nature of the main socioeconomic impacts arising from the proposed development at both construction and operational stages. During construction the ES identifies that between 780 and 1,130 person-years of construction work would result directly from the proposed development. Furthermore, that there would be indirect jobs and additional expenditure in the local area. The total employment impacts for the construction phase could therefore be up to 136 FTE jobs.

8.9.6 With regards to post completion, after allowing for displacement effects, the net additional jobs resulting from the proposed development is estimated in the ES to be in the order of 1,850 (minimum) to 1,990 (maximum) Full time Equivalent (FTE) job at the local level (Table 15.5). This increase to 2,590 (min) to 2,780 (max) FTE jobs having regard to indirect / induced jobs in both the impact area and the East of England Region. Paragraph 15.25 of the ES states; ‘These total employment figures would represent an increase of between 4.1% (2,420) and 4.4% (2,594) over the existing employment baseline in terms of net additional jobs to Thurrock; between 0.96% (2,790) and 1.03% (2,991) increase in the impact area (Thurrock, Basildon, Southend-on-Sea, Castle Point and the London Borough of Havering) and between 0.13% (3,160) and 0.14% (3,388) increase over the existing baseline in terms of additional jobs to the region. Whilst employment as a receptor is currently highly sensitive to change, following the recession and the need for private sector led job growth to drive short and medium term economic prosperity, the levels of employment proposed in the context of Thurrock and surrounding boroughs is relatively small. In this context the impact on employment is considered beneficial and of a substantial scale at the local (Thurrock) level, moderate scale at the labour catchment area level, whilst at a regional level employment creation is considered beneficial and of a minor scale’. (ES, Part 1, para 15.25).

8.9.7 The ES assesses the impact on the local labour market of the estimated 2,420 (minimum) / 2,590 (maximum) net additional permanent jobs likely to be generated by the proposed development in the context of the future balance of employment and labour supply in the Greater Thurrock area, as well as the skill levels required by these jobs and the skills available in the local workforce. It concludes that the occupation profile of the new jobs generated by the development is likely to include a high proportion of lower skilled jobs. This is shown to be a reasonably good match with the occupations sought by claimant unemployed workers in the labour catchment area (Para 15.29). The analysis suggests that the new jobs generated by the proposed development will largely be filled from a variety of sources, but mainly from existing residents of Thurrock and the surrounding boroughs, including existing unemployed. The analysis and conclusions in this regard seem reasonable.

8.9.8 The ES goes onto consider the cumulative impact on the local labour market, in particular with the planned and committed development during the plan period. The ES considered that ‘In consideration of the likely overall balance of labour supply and demand in the area, with significant current unemployment and a potential growth in the labour supply, it does not appear likely that the amount of new jobs generated by the PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

LSC extension and other employment generating development will give rise to any major pressures on the labour market’ (ES, 15.34). The ES considers the impacts of the proposed development on the local labour market are beneficial and of substantial magnitude at the local (Thurrock) level, moderate magnitude at the labour catchment area level, and minor magnitude at the regional level.

8.9.9 Having regard to the ES, the proposal would generate employment and local opportunities. The jobs would require a range of skill levels, many of which would be suited to the skill levels of unemployed workers in the area. Whilst this would accord with objective iii of the RSS and assist in meeting the targets for job growth in the region and Thurrock (RSS Policy E1 and LDF Policy CSSP2), as detailed elsewhere in this report, the proposal does not accord with RSS Policy ETG2 and the LDF’S plan-led approach to bring about the transformation of the Lakeside Basin into a new regional centre.

8.9.10 The ES considers ‘impact on retail facilities’. The ES identifies that the proposed development will specifically meet an identified need for additional retail floorspace at the LSC to support its regional centre status (para 15.40). In relation to this, the RSS Policy ETG2, Part (3) expressly states that the attainment of Regional Centre status for the northern part of the Lakeside Basin is conditional upon the adoption of Local Development Documents. Having regard to ETG2, the LDD will need to secure the objectives of paragraphs (2) and (3) which collectively seek to regenerate and remodelling the Lakeside Basin as a town centre on sustainable mixed use lines. Part (i) of this report considers the proposal against ETG2.

8.9.11 With regards to residual effects, the ES concludes;

I7.5 ‘The overall socio-economic impacts of the proposed development are rated as relatively beneficial for Thurrock and the surrounding area, with the main economic impacts of the scheme being beneficial and of a moderate to substantial magnitude through employment generation and tackling worklessness and skills deprivation.

I7.6 Measures to secure the benefits of this major investment for Thurrock, such as a package of recruitment and training measures to aide local people into work and help them upskill, will ensure that the magnitude of the beneficial economic impacts are retained locally’.

8.9.12 Whilst there are clear benefits in terms of investment and job creation, this report will need to weigh these positive factors against the any harm arising, including any harm from not adhering to the plan led approach to the regeneration of the northern part of the Lakeside Basin. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

XI Inter relationships and Cumulative Effects

8.10 Chapter L of the ES considers ‘Inter Relationships and Cumulative Effects’. It draws together the findings from the various assessments and summarises the environmental effects of the development, taking into account any relevant cumulative impacts. This section seeks to indentify links between impacts and show how these relate to the main sensitive receptors.

8.10.1 With regards inter relationship effects the ES concludes that none would be substantially negative. In conclusion paragraph L4.4 of the ES advises; ‘Table L4.1 above identifies that there is potential for some receptors to be subject to the combined effects of different impacts during construction and operational phases of development. Where this is during the construction phase this would generally be restricted to short periods of time and should be balanced against the overriding beneficial effects anticipated following the completion of the development. With respect to the combined effects of the different impacts during the operation of the development no additional mitigation measures are considered to be required and none are therefore proposed’.

8.10.2 With regards cumulative effects, the object of the ES is to identify whether impacts from other committed developments, which when considered together with the development proposal, might cause a significant cumulative effect requiring mitigation. The ES advises that the ‘potential cumulative impacts of the above committed developments have been assessed within all areas of the ES and individual conclusions have been drawn on any cumulative effects and required mitigation’ (L5.5).

8.10.3 The ES concludes ‘that in those areas where cumulative impact assessment was undertaken there will be no adverse cumulative effects as a result of the development and the other developments assessed and no additional mitigation required. There will be substantial to minor beneficial cumulative impacts on the local and wider labour market due to job generation assisted by a package of measures to promote jobs in the retail industry and enhance skills. There will also be substantial to minor beneficial impacts on the regeneration of LSC and the wider area and the provision of enhanced retail facilities and retail offer’ (L5.6). The relevant sections of this report have assessed the proposal having regard to the ES and cumulative impacts of committed developments. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

9.0 CONCLUSIONS

Having regard to the analysis contained in this report;

9.1 Urban design, landscape, townscape, visual impacts;

 With regards site planning, notwithstanding the ‘principles for transformation of Zone A’ contained in the draft SSADPD (p168) it is considered that there is a clear rationale for the limited retail and non-retail development around the bus station in the manner proposed. The draft SSADPD ‘Option 2’ alludes to a northern extension to the mall and the proposed extension LSC1 accords with this siting, albeit it does not principally orientate towards other zones currently identified as forming Lakeside Regional Town Centre. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the proposal as a whole would reinforce the sense that the eastern facade is the principal frontage to LSC. Focusing a significant amount of retail expansion and public realm improvements at the northern and north-eastern end of the LSC does not in itself aid integration of LSC with the wider northern Lakeside Basin and most notably Lakeside Retail Park and Tesco’s to the west. This focus places additional emphasis on the quality of the pedestrian and cycle links, particularly to the west which are for the most part peripheral.  With regards public realm and landscaping, overall, it is considered that whilst the proposal contains many positive aspects, it is considered that public realm improvements between the northern and southern extensions are required for the proposal to address the public realm in a more comprehensive manner and aid integration and coherence, an aim of RSS Policy ETG2 (2)(iii). This is proposed to be secured via planning obligation.  The scale and form of the proposed extensions are considered acceptable. Furthermore, the proposal would not give rise to adverse landscape, townscape or visual effects and as such accord with LDF-CS Policy CSTP23 (Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness).  With regards design, it is considered that the illustrative approach is sufficiently robust and reserved matters would need to build upon the details illustrated. It is considered that subject to conditions, the development is capable of delivering a high quality design for the extensions in accordance with NPPF and the relevant criteria of RSS Policy ENV7, LDF-CS Policies CSTP22 (Thurrock Design) and PMD2 (Design and Layout).

9.2 Sustainable Design

 The development incorporates a range of energy efficiency measures and complies with LDF-CS Policy PMD12 (Sustainable Buildings).

 LDF-CS Policy CSTP26 (Renewable or low-carbon energy generation) Part (iii) promotes the delivery of district energy networks in priority locations. Having regard to the draft SSADPD, it is not clear what measures will be sought within the final document and the extent to which they would be feasible, viable and add to the CO2 savings identified in the current proposal. In light of this, it is considered that an objection based on Policy CSTP26 could not be substantiated. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

 Having regard to the applicant’s assessment, it is considered that many low and zero carbon technologies that are not currently feasible or viable for use within the current proposal. In light of the analysis in this report and the caveats in RSS Policy ENG1 and LDF CS Policy PMD13, it is considered that an objection based on the level of energy from decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources would be difficult to substantiate.

9.3 Flood risk, drainage, water quality and water resources;

 The measures proposed for surface and foul water drainage and to protect the water environment during construction are considered acceptable. The proposal complies with the sequential test as and with the relevant parts of NPPF, RSS Policy WAT4 (Flood Risk Management) LDF-CS Policies PMD15 (Flood Risk Assessment), CSTP25 (Addressing climate change) and CSTP27 (Management and Reduction of Floor Risk).

9.4 Ground conditions, contamination and remediation;

 Subject to securing the mitigation measures, it is considered that the proposal accords with the relevant criteria of RSS Policy WM6 (Waste Management in Developments) and LDF-CS Policy PMD1.

9.5 Noise and air quality;

 The emissions from the operational aspects of the development will result in negligible impacts on local air quality and as such comply with LDF Policy PMD9. RSS Policy ENV7 states that new development should ’Reduce pollution, including emissions, noise and light pollution’. Having regard to the 2016 baseline traffic conditions, the data accompanying the application predicts a rise in car borne traffic post development (E3.1). Given the evidence presented to the RSS Single Issue Review regarding the anticipated extent of modal shift, it would appear that even with the measures proposed to promote more sustainable transport choices it was accepted that the planned growth at Lakeside would not give rise to a net reduction in car borne traffic. In light of the above, it is considered that an objection based on RSS Policy ENV7 could not be sustained.

 Subject to conditions, it is not considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the noise environment and sensitive receptors and as such complies with PPS24 and the relevant criteria of LDF-CS Policies PMD1 and PMD9. With regards RSS Policy ENV7, in light of the lack of identifiable harm to matters of acknowledged interest and the planned growth within the Lakeside Basin, it is considered that an objection based upon the proposal not giving rise to a reduction in the noise environment could not be substantiated.

9.6 Effects upon ecology and nature conservation;

 Subject to suitable controls, construction would seek to prevent harm and have a negligible effect on ecology. The site is for the most part already developed and the proposal would introduce new areas of habitat which would make a positive, albeit limited, contribution to local wildlife habitat. It is considered that the proposal conforms with part 11 of the NPPF, the relevant parts of RSS Policy ENV3 PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

(Biodiversity and Earth Heritage) (criteria 1) and the overall objective of LDF-CS Policy CSTP19 (Biodiversity) to ‘contribute positively to the overall biodiversity of the Borough’ (p133) and Policy PMD7 (Biodiversity and development).

9.7 Phasing and Impact of construction

 Whilst not forming part of this application, the applicant has detailed the potential to use the Pilgrims Lane site as a construction compound. Due to its Green Belt status, there is a presumption against the use of the Pilgrims Lane site. Furthermore, there are traffic capacity issues that would need to be addressed. Whilst there is uncertainty regarding the use of Pilgrims Lane, it is considered that the two potential alternative on-site locations are feasible.  With regards construction traffic routing to and from the site, the Arterial Road Route as proposed is less congested and more remote from sensitive receptors than a route involving Fenner Road.  It is considered that a SWMP is an appropriate tool to secure the objectives of minimise waste and maximise recycling during construction and can be secured by way of planning condition and as such the proposal accords with the relevant part of LDF-CS Policy PMD12 (Sustainable Buildings)  It is considered that adequate control can be exercised to ensure that the construction phase utilising either of the principal on-site compounds detailed does not cause an unacceptable effect on the amenities of the area including other operators with in the basin. In light of this, it is considered that the proposal accords with LDF Policy PMD1 (Minimising pollution and impacts on amenity).  The proposal makes provision for skills development and local employment opportunities and accords with Part 10 of LDF-CS Policy CSTP6 (Strategic Employment Provision).

9.8 Socio-economic effects

 The ES assesses the impact on the local labour market of the estimated 2,420 (minimum) / 2,590 (maximum) net additional permanent jobs likely to be generated by the proposed development. The ES considers the impacts of the proposed development on the local labour market are beneficial and of substantial magnitude at the local (Thurrock) level, moderate magnitude at the labour catchment area level, and minor magnitude at the regional level. This would accord with objective iii of the RSS (p6) and assist in meeting the targets for job growth in the region and Thurrock (RSS Policy E1 and LDF Policy CSSP2).

9.9 Inter relationships and Cumulative Effects

 The relevant sections of this report have assessed the proposal having regard to the ES, inter relationships, and cumulative impacts of committed developments.

9.10 Retail impact

 With regards the sequential test, the proposal would be consistent in scale of planned growth at Lakeside and the role this centre has in the regional structure of Town Centres as defined by RSS Policy E5. Having regard to the applicant’s PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

impact assessment, it is considered that the proposal would not have a significantly harmful impact on other centres and accords with RSS Policy E5 and paragraphs 24-27 of the NPPF.

9.11 Planning obligations

Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 places limitations on use of planning obligations. Part 1 of this report details the Heads of Terms of the planning obligations being proposed. This report makes reference to the relevant obligations. It is considered that the proposed obligations are; (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and as such comply with the tests set out in Regulation 122.

9.12 Conformity with Policies for the Lakeside Basin and overall conclusions

9.12.1 Whilst the RSS is expected to be revoked, it remains for the time being part of the Development Plan and as such the decision to seek revocation must carry limited weight. Having regard to RSS Policy ETG2 there is a policy requirement to have in place an adopted LDD containing a level of detail to enable the objectives of ETG2 parts (2) and (3) to be met before approval is given for major retail development of the type being proposed. Although the RSS’s effective embargo is not re-stated in the LDF Core Strategy, the LDF-CS Policies and in particular Policy CSTP7 (Network of Centres) supports the plan-led transformation of the Lakeside Basin into a new regional centre and seeks to achieve this through the SSADPD.

9.12.2 The draft SSADPD is at issues and options stage and as such a range of options for the Lakeside basin have been consulted upon. Given the current stage of the SSADPD, the consultation responses to the draft SSADPD have yet to be considered and no preferred option for the transformation of the Lakeside Basin into a new regional centre has been produced. Nor is there the ‘Lakeside Expansion and Diversification Transport Package’ or a ‘Lakeside Implementation and Delivery’ SPD.

9.12.3 Prematurity is the argument that planning permission should be refused not because a proposal is unacceptable in itself but because to grant approval would prejudice emerging policy. Notwithstanding the requirements of RSS Policy ETG2, as detailed in the guidance ‘The Planning System: General Principles’ (2005), “Prematurity” may be a justifiable ground for refusal of planning permission in certain circumstances. Paragraphs 17-19 are detailed below;

‘17. In some circumstances, it may be justifiable to refuse planning permission on grounds of prematurity where a DPD is being prepared or is under review, but it has not yet been adopted. This may be appropriate where a proposed development is so substantial, or where the cumulative effect would be so significant, that granting permission could prejudice the DPD by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which are being addressed in the policy in the DPD. A proposal for development which has an impact on only a small area would rarely come into this category. Where there is a phasing policy, it may be necessary to refuse planning permission on grounds of prematurity if the policy is to have effect.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

18. Otherwise, refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will not usually be justified. Planning applications should continue to be considered in the light of current policies. However, account can also be taken of policies in emerging DPDs. The weight to be attached to such policies depends upon the stage of preparation or review, increasing as successive stages are reached. For example:

• Where a DPD is at the consultation stage, with no early prospect of submission for examination, then refusal on prematurity grounds would seldom be justified because of the delay which this would impose in determining the future use of the land in question. • Where a DPD has been submitted for examination but no representations have been made in respect of relevant policies, then considerable weight may be attached to those policies because of the strong possibility that they will be adopted. The converse may apply if there have been representations which oppose the policy. However, much will depend on the nature of those representations and whether there are representations in support of particular policies.

19. Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the planning authority will need to demonstrate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the DPD process’. (‘The Planning System: General Principles’ (2005), ODPM)

9.12.4 Whilst the above guidance is still extant, the NPPF makes no reference to the issue of prematurity. The Core Planning Principles in the NPPF emphasise that planning should be “genuinely plan-led” (para 17). As detailed at para 14, at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF goes onto state,

‘For a decision-taking this means: ● approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and ● where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out‑of‑date, granting permission unless: – any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or – specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted’.

In considering the issue of prematurity, a 3-stage process can be identified: (a) Initially, consider whether the development is so substantial that granting permission could predetermine decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are being considered as part of the emerging DPD. If not, prematurity will not usually be a justifiable ground for refusal. (b) If in response to (a) above, it is considered that the size of the development could predetermine decisions being considered in the DPD, consideration should be given to the stage of preparation or review reached by the DPD (in accordance with paragraph 18 of the aforementioned ODPM Guidance). PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

(c) At the third stage, the decision maker should effectively balance any prejudice to the emerging DPD caused by the predetermination of decisions against the delay in determining the future use of the land in question.

9.12.5 With regards (a) above, the development equates to c.60% of the comparison floorspace allowable under RSS Policy ETG2 and LDF Policy CSTP7 and as such is considered substantial. The Lakeside Regional Town Centre Plan contained in Chapter 9 of the draft SSADPD sets out a range of overall development options and their implications for each Zone. Whilst the proposal would accord with the quantum of development envisaged for Zone ‘A’ by Option 1 of the draft SSADPD it would exceed the floor area envisaged for this Zone by Option 2. It is considered that the development is of a substantial scale and granting permission would predetermine decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new retail development that are being considered as part of the emerging SSADPD. Notwithstanding this, the proposal would not prejudice non-retail development within or out with LSC should the finalised SSADPD deem that to be desirable.

9.12.6 Having regards to the findings in relation to part (a), part (b) detailed above falls to be considered. In this case, the consultation period on the draft SSADPD Issues and Options Public Participation (Regulation 25) concluded on the 8TH June 2012 and the results of the consultation have yet to be formally considered by Thurrock Council. This is a preliminary stage of production for the SSADPD. As detailed on page 6 of the draft SSADPD, there may be a second round of consultation on the draft SSADPD prior to moving onto the Pre-Submission stage. The anticipated timescale for the adoption of the SSADPD of mid to end of 2013 may be subject to revision. In light of this paragraph 18 of the ODPM guidance detailed above advises that ‘refusal on prematurity grounds would seldom be justified because of the delay which this would impose in determining the future use of the land in question’. Furthermore, as detailed above, the NPPF’s contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. However, it is considered that this must be tempered by the Policy requirement of RSS Policy ETG2 to have in place an appropriate LDD containing a level of detail to enable the objectives of ETG2 to be met before any approval is given for major comparison retail proposals of the type now being proposed and the plan-led approach to Lakeside specified in LDF Core Strategy Policies.

9.12.7 Part 1 of this report provides an analysis of the proposal against the objectives set out in RSS Policy ETG2, the options for how these are currently proposed to be met as expressed in the draft SSADPD and conformity with relevant development plan policies.

9.12.8 At this stage, the draft SSADPD is consulting on establishing a town centre boundary with a designated primary shopping area as required by RSS Policy ETG2 Part 2 (i) and ETG2 Part 3 (i). The draft SSADPD considers that Lakeside Shopping Centre comprises both the existing Primary Shopping Frontages and Primary Shopping Area within Lakeside (paras 9.11.5 – 7, p219). This is considered logical given the nature of the existing offer and the location of public transport. Whilst it is considered that approving the development would commit a significant quantum of the retail floorspace permitted by policy and re-enforce LSC status, given the above and LSC function and location, it is considered highly likely that this designation will go forward irrespective of this proposed development, albeit it may be extended to cover other areas. In light of the above, it is considered that approving the development would be unlikely to prejudice the SSADPD PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

establishing a town centre boundary with a designated primary shopping area as required by RSS Policy ETG2 Part 2 (i) and ETG2 Part 3.

9.12.9 RSS Policy ETG2 Part 2 (vi) seeks an improved range of services and facilities and Part 3(ii) seeks mixed use growth. The application proposes a mix of uses comprising Use Classes A1 (Shop), A2 (Financial and Professional Services), A3 (Restaurants and Cafes), A4 (Drinking Establishments) and A5 (Hot Food Take-away). Having regard to the draft SSADPD and the applicants ‘Indicative Master Plan Vision’ which details further phases of development including leisure proposals on the western side of the Mall, it is considered that the proposal would not prejudice further non-retail development within LSC should the finalised SSADPD deem that to be desirable. It is considered that approving the development would provide a mixed use development and would not prejudice the attainment of a greater mix of uses and services within the Lakeside Basin in accordance with RSS Policy ETG2 Part 3(ii).

9.12.10 The proposed quantum of convenience goods floorspace (1,991sq.m) is within the quantum (minimum 4,000sq.m) envisaged by LDF-CS Policy CSTP7 and draft SSADPD. Whilst the proposed location of the convenience floorspace would offer certain benefits and accord with Option 1 of the draft SSADPD, the proposal would commit a proportion of the finite net convenience floorspace ahead of the consideration of the draft SSADPD. In light of the above, whilst there are considerable merits in location of the convenience floor space in the manner proposed, approving the development would predetermine decisions about the location of a proportion of the new convenience floorspace that is being considered as part of the emerging SSADPD.

9.12.11 The indicative design of the built environment shows how the development could achieve high quality. With regards to the public realm, the report identifies that the development has a number of positive aspects including a new bridge across Lake Alexandra, provision of externalised street and attractive ‘public’ space, improvements around the new bus station and a commitment to make improvements between the northern and southern extensions. Whilst proposed development makes a limited financial contribution towards enhancing the public realm out with the application site, this needs to be considered in light of the significant commitment to on-site works. In this regard, it is considered that the proposal would accord with LDF Policy PMD2 (Design and Layout) and assist in and make a proportionate response to meeting the objectives of ETG2 Part 2 (iii), Part 3(v).

9.12.12 It is considered that the proposal makes a significant contribution towards the RSS and LDF CS objectives of improving local accessibility, reducing severance, promoting the use of more sustainable transport choices and reducing the need to travel by car in accordance with the relevant criteria of RSS Policies T2 (Changing Travel Behaviour), T4 (Urban Transport), T9 (Walking Cycling and other non-motorised transport) and T13 (Public Transport Accessibility) and LDF-CS Policies CSTP14 (Transport in the Thurrock Urban Area).

9.12.13 Whilst the draft SSADPD has yet to advance to preferred option stage nor is there a Lakeside Expansion and Diversification Transport Package’ or a ‘Lakeside Implementation and Delivery’ SPD, it would appear that much of the local infrastructure associated with this application is not specific to either strategic option presented in the draft SSADPD and as such is currently seen as either desirable or essential to facilitating PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

the creation of a Regional Town Centre. In this regard, it is considered that there would be no substantial prejudice to the achievement of the objective for the Lakeside basin as expressed in RSS Policy ETG2 Part 2 (viii) or the guiding principles of LDF CS Policy CSTP14.

9.12.14 Having regard to the analysis in this report, the infrastructure package appears to be proportionate contribution towards the overall local infrastructure requirements arising from the current strategic spatial options in the draft SSADPD. Given the costs principally are made up of embedded infrastructure, such as the new bridge and bus station there is little scope to re-distribute this towards local off-site highway works. In the event that this approach is considered acceptable, the cost associated with local off-site highway works would fall to be met by other development within the Lakeside Basin.

9.12.15 It is a policy requirement of RSS ETG2 Part 3 (iv) and (vii) to have an Implementation Plan in place and indicative thresholds for new retail floorspace phased with required infrastructure. Given the stage which the SSADPD has reached, the Implementation Plan has yet to be produced and may not be finalised until 2013 or later. From the analysis contained in this report it would appear that the application is making a proportionate contribution towards the overall local infrastructure requirements identified in the draft SSADPD. Furthermore, the infrastructure to be delivered is for the most part not specific to either strategic option in the draft SSADPD and as such can be seen as currently deemed to be either desirable or essential to facilitating the creation of a Regional Town Centre. As specified in the Heads of Terms, the applicant is for the most part charged with delivering what is for the most part embedded infrastructure within either specified timeframes or linked to a trigger within the development. In this regard, it is considered that there would be no prejudice to the achievement of the objective for the Lakeside basin as expressed in RSS Policy ETG2 Part 2 (viii) or the guiding principles of LDF CS Policy CSTP14.

9.12.16 With regard ETG2 Part 2 (iv), it is not clear at this stage what quantum of open space and green infrastructure will be sought in the final SSADPD. It would appear that the aspiration for LSC site as expressed in the draft SSADPD exceed that being advanced as part of the current application. This may in part be down to the number of options being presented for consultation and seeking to meet the needs arising from the level of housing envisaged within the wider basin, the quantum and location of which has yet to be finalised. In light of this, whilst the proposal assists in enhancing green infrastructure principally as part of public realm improvements and as such assists in meeting Policy RSS Part 2 (iv) and LDF-CS CSTP18 Part 2(i) and CSTP20 objectives, it is difficult at this stage to definitively assess whether the proposal makes a proportionate contribution.

9.12.17 The LSC Travel Plan and associated measures to be secured as part of the development have a clear relationship with the delivery of the emerging measures identified in the draft SSADPD designed to promote public transport, accessibility and reduce car trips. The applicant’s commitment to enter into a binding travel plan accords with LDF Policy PMD10 and RSS Policy T2 (Changing Travel Behaviour) and neither the Highway Authority nor the Travel Plan advisor raise any objections in this regard.

9.12.18 The proposed development is in advance of an Area Wide Travel Plan and as such is contrary to RSS Policy ETG2 Part (2) (vii) which seek an area wide travel plan for Lakeside in association with the LDD, as does LDF Policy CSTP14 (Transport in the PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

Thurrock Urban Area). The applicant is offering Thurrock Council a role monitoring the implementation of the LSC Travel Plan and reviewing its implementation and effectiveness as part of the Travel Plan Monitoring Group (TPMG). Such a role could assist in co-ordinating the LSC Travel Plan with the Area Wide Travel Plan once established. In light of this, the measures set out in the Travel Plan and the contribution of the proposal to achieving modal shift, it is not considered that approving the development ahead of the production of an Area Wide Travel Plan would cause prejudice to the achievement of the objectives for the Lakeside Basin.

9.12.19 RSS Policy ETG2 Part 3 (vi) makes the attainment of Regional Centre Status conditional upon the adopted LDD providing for, inter alia, car parking charging and management regime. This is re-iterated in LDF-CS Policy CSTP14 part 2 (iv). The purpose of car park management and charging is to restrict traffic growth on the strategic and local road networks and to encourage changes in travel behaviour towards more sustainable forms of transport (i.e. modal shift). Other than reiterating the requirement for a car parking charging and management regime the draft SSADPD contains no detail of what is envisaged, deferring such matters to the Lakeside Implementation & Delivery SPD which has yet to be produced. The applicant is not offering to introduce parking charges as part of the proposed development and as such the proposal is contrary to RSS Policy ETG2 (3)(vi) and LDF CS Policy CSTP14 part 2 (iv).

9.12.20 Part of the applicant’s case is that through the provision of infrastructure and management measures the proposed development is responding to the requirements of the RSS in terms of facilitating sustainable movement patterns with the overall conclusion that the level of modal shift expected to be achieved is acceptable. Whilst the RSS requires certain measures, including parking charging, it does not prescribe a level of modal split to be achieved to attain Regional Centre Status. The draft SSADPD does not at this stage contain modal spilt targets.

9.12.21 The MVA EIP Statement 2009 produced on behalf of EERA concludes that ‘Overall we might expect a mode shift in the range of 2-5% towards public transport for all trips as a result of a comprehensive package of improvement measures along the lines of those described above’ (Para 4.4). It is clear from the above that the projected mode shift in the range of 2-5% included parking strategies. The MVA EIP Statement 2009 produced on behalf of EERA indicates that for the basin study area the measures employed would give rise to a modest shift from car to non-car modes of around 4%. The revised modal share projections from the applicants agent indicates the proposed incentive measures would give rise to a 3.25% modal shift from at LSC and a 1.1% modal shift at the adjacent retail parks (4.35% total). Whilst these percentages appear to be modest, this relates to the totality of development at LSC and would effect change within the wider basin. It represents the outcome of significant levels of investment and would bring about a shift in travel behaviour giving rise to many thousands of reduced trips by car. It is also affecting a level of mode shift within the range envisaged by the MVA EIP Statement 2009. In light of this, it is considered that the development without the inclusion of parking charging is making a proportionate contribution towards achieving modal shift.

9.12.22 As detailed above, a measure not being introduced which could potentially affect greater modal shift, albeit the degree to which is not established, is parking charging. In this instance, whilst no objections are raised to the proposal due to the impact on the operational efficiency of the local road network, it is considered that not securing parking PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

charging as part of this development would make it difficult to secure it comprehensively, reducing the scope for parking charging to be used as a measure to affect modal shift.

9.12.23 Having regard to the above analysis the development conflicts with parts of the development plan. Notwithstanding the unresolved issue of the Strategic Road network, it is considered that Members would only be in a position to approve the application in the event that;

1. Members conclude that in light of the above (or for other stated reasons) there is a sound and valid justification for departing from development plan policies RSS ETG2 (3)(vi) and LDFCS CSTP14 part 2 (iv) requirement for securing parking charging and a management regime.

9.12.24 Notwithstanding the above, given the quantum of parking supply at LSC and the floorspace sought by this development, it is considered that not securing parking charging as part of this development would make it difficult to secure it comprehensively, reducing the scope for parking charging to be used on a basin wide basis, either alone or in conjunction with Parking Management, as a measure to affect more sustainable transport choices.

9.12.25 RSS Policy ETG2 (3) (vi) makes the attainment of Regional Centre Status conditional upon the adopted LDD providing for, inter alia, a parking management regime. Whilst there is no Basin Wide Parking Management Regime (BWPMR), the draft SSADPD (p239) identifies an opportunity to develop a strategy for parking at Lakeside Basin which includes consolidating car parking facilities at particular locations into shared ‘hubs’. These would be seen as car parks serving the overall Regional Town Centre rather than as the current principal arrangement of individual car parks. Such an approach could include the use a basin wide Variable Message Signage (VMS) system to advising travellers of route congestion and car park capacity at the various parking hubs. Whilst the applicant has made a commitment to participate in a future BWPMR, given that the proposal would not reduce the quantum of car parking, it is considered that the current proposal would not facilitate the creation of a shared hub(s) for parking as envisaged in the draft SSADPD. In addition, whilst the applicant is prepared to link parking management at their site to any future basin wide system should it come forward as part of a BWPMR, it is considered that the benefits of a Variable Message System (VMS) may be limited principally to route management in the event that there is not a reduction of parking within the basin as part of the creation of parking hubs, which is not proposed to be secured via the current proposal.

9.12.26 With regards the local road network and infrastructure, the improvements / works proposed to be undertaken would promote more sustainable transport choices. Thurrock Council Highways consider that the measures proposed limit and mitigate the impacts of the development on the local highway network are adequate. With regards road safety, in light of Highways response, the measures proposed to improve linkages and improve public transport and reduce inter-basin car journeys mitigate the potential harm arising.

9.12.27 With regards to the strategic road network, at the time of drafting this report the Highways Agency are advising that the proposal will have a material impact on the operation of junction 30 of the M25 and consequently mitigation measures will be required to mitigate that impact and negotiations with the applicant are ongoing in this PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

regard. In light of this, at the time of drafting this report it has not been possible for Officers to conclude on issues of impact of the proposal on the strategic road network or the implications of approving this development in advance of the LDD and associated Implementation Plan which will need to incorporate a strategy to deal with the impact of the totality of development planned at Lakeside on the Strategic Road network. In light of the above, at the time of drafting this report it has not been possible for Officer to conclude on two substantive issues. Members are asked to DEFER consideration of the application to allow receipt of the Highways Agency’s final consultation response following negotiations with the applicant and for Officers to consider the issue of impact of the proposal on the strategic road network and the implications of approving this development in advance of the LDD.

9.12.28 Notwithstanding the above, at the third stage of considering the issue of Prematurity the decision maker should effectively balance any prejudice to the emerging DPD caused by the predetermination of decisions against the delay in determining the future use of the land in question. Furthermore, in this instance, consideration needs to be given as to whether there is a sound justification for departing from the plan led approach to development within the Lakeside Basin as envisaged by RSS Policy ETG2 and LDF policies. In light of the above analysis, it is considered that the following prejudice to the LDD can be identified;  Whilst the proposal would accord with the quantum of development envisaged for Zone ‘A’ by Option 1 of the draft SSADPD it would exceed the floor area envisaged for this Zone by Option 2. It is considered that the development is of a substantial scale and granting permission would predetermine decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new retail development that are being considered as part of the emerging SSADPD.  Whilst the proposed location of the convenience floorspace would offer certain benefits and accord with Option 1 of the draft SSADPD, the proposal would commit a proportion of the finite net convenience floorspace ahead of the consideration of the draft SSADPD. In light of the above, whilst there are considerable merits in location of the convenience floor space in the manner proposed, approving the development would predetermine decisions about the location of a proportion of the new convenience floorspace that is being considered as part of the emerging SSADPD.  Whilst the draft SSADPD has yet to advance to preferred option stage nor is there a Lakeside Expansion and Diversification Transport Package’ or a ‘Lakeside Implementation and Delivery’ SPD, it would appear that much of the local infrastructure associated with this application is not specific to either strategic option presented in the draft SSADPD and as such is currently seen as either desirable or essential to facilitating the creation of a Regional Town Centre. In this regard, it is considered that there would be limited prejudice to the achievement of the objective for the Lakeside basin as expressed in RSS Policy ETG2 Part 2 (viii) or the guiding principles of LDF CS Policy CSTP14  Not securing parking charging as part of this development would make it difficult to secure it comprehensively, reducing the scope for parking charging to be used as a measure to affect modal shift.  Whilst the applicant has made a commitment to participate in a future BWPMR, given that the proposal would not reduce the quantum of car parking, it is considered that the current proposal would not facilitate the creation of a shared PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

hub(s) for parking as envisaged in the draft SSADPD and could prejudice the SSADPD’s consideration of Parking Management.

9.12.29 The application acknowledges that it is being submitted in advance of LDD’s and seeks acceptance of the outline scheme in view of, inter alia; (a) the delays in the plan-making process to date; (b) the support for economic development, the urgency surrounding the need for investment and the regeneration priority of the Lakeside Basin, and; (c) the proposals conformity with a range of Policies including the attainment or proportionate contribution towards the objectives of RSS Policy ETG2.

9.12.30 With regards (c) above, this is considered above. With regard (a) and (b), the applicant highlights delays in the adoption of the LDF Core Strategy and progress of the SSADPD, the adoption of the Core Strategy being a year and a half behind the timetable anticipated at the time of the RSS Single Issue Review. The applicant advises that; ‘In view of the significance of this investment for the Lakeside Basin, the need for regeneration of this area and the urgent requirement to create jobs, the absence of an adopted LDD should not frustrate this substantial private investment coming forward immediately. The role of policy is to help facilitate development not frustrate or delay it through prolonged delays in policy formulation over which CSC has had no control’ (para 4.19).

9.12.31 The applicant goes onto highlight Paragraph 13 of draft NPPF (July 2011) which states that “planning must operate to encourage growth and not act as an impediment. Therefore, significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system’. Paragraph 19 of the final NPPF contains similar direction.

9.12.32 The statutory development plan envisages a plan led approach to the transformation of the Lakeside Basin. With regards timescale, RSS Policy ETG2 (Part 4) advises that ‘Retail expansion at the new Regional Centre should be limited to 50,000 m2 of net comparison floorspace by 2019 together with an appropriate amount of convenience floorspace to reflect the Boroughs population growth. LDF-CS Policy CSTP7 (Network of Centres) states ‘Expansion at the new Lakeside regional centre will include the following: (i) Up to 50,000 sq.m of net comparison floorspace (by 2019)’. In light of the above, both the RSS and LDF-CS envisage up to 50,000sq.m of net comparison floorspace by 2019.

9.12.33 The Local Development Scheme (Jan 2011) envisaged publication of the SSADPD Issues and Options in July 2011 and conclusion in August 2011, publication of submission draft in April 2012, formal submission to Secretary of State in September 2012, EIP January 2013 and adoption June 2013. It also envisaged consultation on the ‘Lakeside Implementation and Delivery SPD’ in July 2012.

9.12.34 The Consultation Draft “Issues and Options” SSADPD was subject to 12 weeks of consultation commencing on the 16th March 2012 and concluding on the 8th June 2012. This is 7 months behind the timetable envisaged in Jan 2011. The draft SSADPD advises that there may be a second round of consultation on the Site Allocations DPD prior to moving onto the Pre-Submission stage (para 1.27, p7). This is not factored into the timetable detailed in the LDS (Jan 2011). Notwithstanding this, the existing slippage in the timescale for producing the SSADPD may delay submission until mid-2013.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

9.12.35 The timescale for the anticipated production of the LDD relevant to Lakeside will inevitably delay potential investment decisions and job creation in the intervening period. The anticipated timescale for the adoption of the SSADPD would provide a five year period to achieve the employment and retail growth by the 2019 timescale envisaged by RSS Policy ETG2 (Part 4) and LDF-CS Policy CSTP7 (Network of Centres). It is a material consideration that delays in the adoption of SSADPD could discourage investment in LSC, significantly impede the creation of Regional Town Centre and job creation. Furthermore, the draft SSADPD envisages Lakeside Shopping Centre playing an important role in the creation of a Regional town centre. In the event that investment is discouraged, this may affect the ability to bring about change.

9.12.36 This report contains a thorough analysis of the proposal against the objectives set out in RSS Policy ETG2, development plan policies and the draft SSADPD. Overall, it is considered that the proposal would make a significant contribution to achieving the objectives set out in ETG2 and the proposal shows a strong degree of conformity with options being advanced in the draft SSADPD. Whilst the proposal is ahead of the SSADPD, it provides the opportunity to assist in the transformation of the northern part of the Lakeside Basin into a Regional town centre.

9.12.37 It is considered that Members would only be in a position to approve the application in the event that;

2. Members conclude that the prejudice to the emerging DPD caused by the predetermination of decisions is outweighed by other material considerations and in light of the above (or for other stated reasons), there is a sound justification for departing from the plan led approach to development within the Lakeside Basin as envisaged by RSS Policy ETG2 and LDF policies.

9.12.38 If, following the satisfactory resolution of the strategic highway matters, the committee was minded to approve the application it will be necessary to first refer the application to the Secretary of State under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (Direction) 2009. In addition, it will also be necessary to make a statement regarding the consideration of the impacts identified in the EIA (a draft statement is attached as part of Appendix 2).

10.0 RECOMMENDATION

10.1 In light of the above, at the time of drafting this report it has not been possible for Officers to conclude on two substantive issues. MEMBERS ARE ASKED TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION to allow receipt of the Highways Agency’s final consultation following the conclusion of negotiations with the applicant. Furthermore, in light of this for Officers to further consider the issue of impact of the proposal on the strategic road network and the implications of approving this development in advance of the LDD and to report this to Members.

10.1.1 Whilst at the time of drafting this report the issue of the Strategic Road network remains unresolved, having regard to the above analysis, two points have been identified to assist Members in the consideration of the complex issues this application raises;

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

10.1.2 Having regard to the above analysis it is considered that the development conflicts with parts of the development plan. It is considered that Members would only be in a position to approve the application in the event that;

1 Members conclude that in light of the above (or for other stated reasons) there is a sound and valid justification for departing from development plan policies RSS ETG2 (3)(vi) and LDFCS CSTP14 part 2 (iv) requirement for securing parking charging and a management regime.

2 Members conclude that the prejudice to the emerging Development Plan Document caused by the predetermination of decisions is outweighed by other material considerations and, in light of the above (or for other stated reasons), there is a sound justification for departing from the plan led approach to development within the Lakeside Basin as envisaged by RSS Policy ETG2 and LDF policies.

10.1.3 In the event that Members do not conclude with the above, permission should not be granted. Without prejudice to the consideration of the application, attached as Appendix 2 is a schedule of draft conditions in the event that strategic highways issues are resolved and Members, having considered points 1 and 2 above, wish to approve the application.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

APPENDIX 1

Table 7 - comparing the floorspace sought by way of the current application against that presented as Strategic Spatial Framework Options for Zone A in the SSADPD.

Use Class / Type Current Consultation Draft Site Specific Allocations of Use Application DPD

Proposed net Strategic Spatial Strategic Spatial additional Gross Framework Option 1 as it Framework Option 2 as it Internal Area relates to Zone A* relates to Zone A* (sq.m) A1 (Shops) 35,660 to 41,000sq.m 30,000sq.m 37,651*sq.m gross comparison retail comparison retail (gross) (gross)

Net Additional Net (c.30,750sq.m net) (c.22,500sq.m net) Sales Area (NANSA) is 30,121sq.m

(*maximum of 1,991 would be convenience goods) (Convenience max 1,991sq.m 2,000sq.m gross 1,000sq.m gross Goods) gross (c.1,500sq.m net) (c.750sq.m net) (c.1,500sq.m net) Housing 0 100-150 150-300

Leisure and other 3,053 – 4,884 Flagship leisure and Flagship leisure and quality hotel quality hotel A2 (Financial and Professional Services) A3 (Restaurants & Cafes) A4 (Drinking Establishments) A5 (Hot Food Takeaway)

*Note: The above relates to the Strategic Spatial Framework Options. These are further expressed in the ‘Options for the Lakeside Basin by Zone’ in Section 9.9 of the SSADPD. Below is a guide as to how the allocation of floor area in the ‘Options for the Lakeside Basin by Zone’ together adheres to the allocation of floor area in one or other of the Strategic Spatial Framework Options;

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

Table 8 and 9 – Table detailing how the allocation of floor area in the ‘Options for the Lakeside Basin by Zone’ together adhere to the allocation of floor area in one or other of the Strategic Spatial Framework Options

Table 8

Total comparison retail floorspace to 2026 Net Gross Floorspace floorspace sq.m sq.m Zone A Option 2 22,410 30,000

Zone B Option 3 26,245 35,000

Zone C1 Option 3 9,375 12,500

Zone C2 Option 2 2,437 3,250

Zone C3 Option 2 5,625 7,500

TOTAL 66,092 88,250

Strategic Spatial Framework Option 2 66,000 88,250

Table 9

Total comparison retail floorspace to 2026 Net Gross Floorspace floorspace sq.m sq.m Zone A Option 1 30,750 41,000

Zone B: Option 2 18,000 24,000

Zone C1 Option 2 6,187 8,250

Zone C2 Option 1 5,250 7,000

TOTAL 60,187 80,250

Strategic Spatial Framework Option 1 60,000 80,250

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

APPENDIX 2 – DRAFT CONDITIONS AND INFORMATIVES

Draft Statement regarding Environmental Statement

Draft – ‘The application is supported by an ES which considers the impact of the development on a range of receptors and concludes that any impact would be within acceptable limits. Having taken into account representations received from others, the Thurrock Council considers that the proposed development is acceptable, subject to a legal agreement and compliance with a number of planning conditions that are imposed upon the permission’.

Procedure and draft conditions

Should the Planning Committee resolve to grant planning permission, the application will need to be referred to the Secretary of State under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, advising that Thurrock Council is minded to approve the application subject to;

A The completion and signing of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to the planning obligations set out in this report;

B Conditions

With regards to (B), a draft set of conditions are detailed below for Members consideration; PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

SUBMISSION OF RESERVED MATTERS 1. Details of the appearance, access, landscaping, layout and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. Application(s) for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than four years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than one year from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

Reason: To establish a timescale for the submission of reserved matters and implementation, having regard to the scale of development and Sections 91 to 95 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

RESERVED MATTERS 2. Development shall not commence until details of:

(a) the Layout of the new development;

(b) the Scale of the new development;

(d) the Means of Access of the new development or a phase. Such details shall include access within the site for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians in terms of the positioning and treatment of access and circulation routes and how these fit into the surrounding access network; and

(e) the Landscaping of the development

(hereinafter called the 'Reserved Matters'), have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. For the purposes of this condition, 'Development' shall exclude: investigations for the purpose of assessing ground conditions.

Reason: The application as submitted does not give particulars sufficient for the consideration of the reserved matters and to accord with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. To ensure the development is undertaken on the basis of the development proposed and accompanying assessments which has been advanced at outline stage, assessed and agreed and to which the reserved matters should adhere.

PARAMETERS 3. Subject to compliance with the requirements of the conditions attached to this permission, the submission of Reserved Matters for any part of the site or phase shall adhere to and demonstrate conformity with the following parameters accompanying the application: (a) the minimum / maximum siting of buildings / extensions hereby permitted as detailed on ‘Parameters Plan 4 – Minimum / Maximum siting’, ref: 080141-D-304 C, (b) the minimum / maximum heights for buildings / extensions and plant detailed on; PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

- ‘Parameters Plan 5 – Minimum / Maximum heights’, ref: 080141-D-305 B, - ‘Parameters Plan 7 – Indicative sections and elevations key’, ref: 080141-D-307 B - ‘Parameters Plan 8 – Proposed sections AA-DD’ ref: 080141-D-308 A - ‘Parameters Plan 9 – Proposed sections EE-GG’ ref: 080141-D-309 A (c) The creation of a pedestrian and cycle networks through the site or part thereof as detailed on; - ‘Parameters Plan 6 – Landscaping / public realm and vehicle access works’, ref: 080141-D-306 C - ‘Proposed street networks within Lakeside Shopping Centre’, ref: 9V7636/RH10 REV D1 (d) The creation of landscaping and public realm works in the areas of at least the extent and distribution detailed on; - ‘Parameters Plan 6 – Landscaping / public realm and vehicle access works’, ref: 080141-D-306 C - ‘Proposed street networks within Lakeside Shopping Centre’, ref: 9V7636/RH10 REV D1 (e) The incorporation of vehicle access works and alteration to vehicle accesses within the site detailed on; - ‘Parameters Plan 6 – Landscaping / public realm and vehicle access works’, ref: 080141-D-306 C - ‘Proposed street networks within Lakeside Shopping Centre’, ref: 9V7636/RH10 REV D1 (f) The creation of a new bus station and temporary bus station within the site within the areas detailed on; - Parameters Plan 6 – Landscaping / public realm and vehicle access works’, ref: 080141-D-306 C - ‘Proposed street networks within Lakeside Shopping Centre’, ref: 9V7636/RH10 REV D1

In addition they shall;

(g) Utilise the plot identification references detailed on ‘Parameters Plan 3 – Plot Plan’, ref: 080141-D-303 B (h) Not exceed the maximum number of storeys identified for each plot stated at Table C3.3 of the Environmental Statement (Volume 2, p11 (Dec 2011)).

Reason: To ensure that individual reserved matters and phases follow the parameters assessed, considered and established at outline stage and do not prejudice the ability to deliver the development in a manner which is coherent and compliant with; RSS Policies T2, T4, T8, T9, T13, ENV1, ENV3, ETG6 and the objectives of ETG2 and compliance with LDF Core Strategy Polices CSSP5, CSTP7, CSTP14, CSTP15, CSTP16, CSTP18, CSTP19, CSTP22, CSTP23, PMD2, PMD7 and assists in the creation of Lakeside Regional Town Centre. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT 4. The development shall not be begun until a detailed programme of phasing of the development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority (herein referred to as 'the Phasing Strategy'). The Phasing Strategy shall include;

a. A plan defining the extent of the works comprised within each phase;

b. Details of the quantum of floorspace to be created within each phase;

c. The infrastructure works to be included and undertaken within each phase, including; - pedestrian and cycle networks - landscaping and public realm works - vehicle access works and alteration to vehicle accesses within the site - new bus station - temporary bus station - creation of a bridge across Lake Alexandra - formation of a link road between Lakeside Shopping Centre and Tesco’s in the matter approved under application ref; 12/50446/TTGFUL - surface and foul water drainage - provision for Police (include toilet/washing, report writing and rest facilities, a secure cycle parking rack or bar)

e. A timetable for the implementation and completion of works within each phase including infrastructure;

f. Detail of the timing for the provision and opening of the new bus station and temporary bus station

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Phasing Strategy.

Reason: To ensure the timely delivery of the development and associated infrastructure. To comply with RSS Policies T1, T2, T4, T8, T9, T13, WAT4, ETG6, ENV7 and the objectives of ETG2 and compliance with LDF Core Strategy Polices CSSP2, CSSP5, CSTP14, CSTP16, CSTP18, CSTP19, CSTP20, CSTP22, CSTP27, PMD2, PMD10, PMD15. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS 5. (A) The development hereby permitted shall not exceed the maximum net change in floor area per scheme component specified in Table 1 below; TABLE 1 – Development floor space

Scheme Gross Maximum Net change components as Internal Area Gross referenced on of areas to Internal Area (GIA sq.m) Parameters Plan be (GIA) of New 3 – Plot Plan ref: demolished Build in sq.m 080141-D-303 B (GIA sq.m)

Northern 11,628 53,544 41,917 Extension (LSC 1, 2, 3a and 3b) Bus station and 155 4,762 4,607 associated facilities

(including LSC4a, b and c)

Multi Storey Car n/a 24,103 24,103 Park (LSC5) TOTAL 11,783 82,412 70,627

(B) In addition to (A) above, the development and uses hereby permitted shall not exceed the maximum floor areas specified in Table 2 below; TABLE 2

Use Class / Type of Use Maximum Net Additional Gross Internal Area in sq.m (NAGIA) Use Classes A1, (Shops), A2 (Financial and 40,704 Professional Services), A3 (Restaurants & Cafes), A4 (Drinking Establishments) and A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) combined Multi Storey Car Park 24,103 Mall space and other communal areas 5,819 TOTAL 70,626

(C) Each application for Reserved Matters pursuant to condition 2 part (a) ‘Layout’ and part (b) ‘Scale’ incorporating additional floorspace shall be accompanied by:

i) A schedule of accommodation and floor space proposed within that phase(s) PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

and the quantum and nature of floorspace to be lost / demolished with reference to the breakdown of floor space detailed in Parts (A) and (B) above;

ii) Details of how the development proposed would ensure that the remaining development will not exceed the maximum floor area requirements of Parts (A) and (B) of this condition. This shall include an updated schedule of accommodation and floor space to be delivered by further phase(s) of development having regard to Parts (A) and (B) of this condition.

The RICS definition of Gross Internal Area contained in the Code of Measuring Practice 6th Edition shall be used for all calculations of GIA.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and the other submitted details including the EIA and Retail Impact Assessment assessed in relation to the development. To ensure that individual reserved matters and phases do not prejudice the ability to deliver the development hereby permitted in an acceptable manner. Furthermore, to ensure the development does not give rise to an un- permitted reduction in the finite retail floorspace allocation for Lakeside which will assist in the creation of a Regional Town Centre (as detailed in RSS Policy ETG2 and LDF Core Strategy Policy CSTP7).

FLOOR AREAS AND USES 6. (A) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any amending or re- enacting Acts or Orders), the development hereby permitted shall at no point exceed the maximum floor areas specified for each Use Class or group of Use Classes detailed in Table ‘3’ below. Unless otherwise agreed as part of the Reserve Matters application, no mezzanine floors shall be installed within any building. TABLE ‘3’ Use Class / Type of Use Maximum Net Maximum Net Additional Additional Net Gross Internal Sales Area in Area in sq.m sq.m) (NAGIA) (NANSA) Use Class A1 (Shops) 37,651 30,121

Use Classes A2 (Financial and 4,884 - Professional Services), A3 (Restaurants & Cafes), A4 (Drinking Establishments) and

A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) combined TOTAL 40,704 -

(B) Notwithstanding (A) detailed above and the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any amending or re-enacting Acts or Orders), the maximum Net Additional Net Sales Area (NANSA) for Use Class A1 (Shops) (both convenience and comparison) shall PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

not exceed 30,121 sq.m of which no more than 1,991sq.m shall be convenience goods retail. The 1,991sq.m of convenience goods retail shall be within one retail unit.

(C) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any amending or re- enacting Acts or Orders), out with the convenience goods retail unit referred to in (B) above and the Use Class A3 (Restaurants and Cafes), A4 (Drinking Establishments) and A5 (Hot Food Take-away) uses hereby permitted, there shall be no retail sales of foodstuffs anywhere within the retail units hereby permitted without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

(D) Notwithstanding the above and the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, the use of the plots LSC1 to LSC5 (inclusive) shall accord with the Use Classes specified on Parameters Plan 3 (ref: 080141-D-303 A) subject to the development hereby permitted not exceed the maximum floor areas specified for each Use Class or group of Use Classes detailed in the Table (3) above.

(E) Upon request, the applicant shall within 56 days provide the Local Planning Authority with a written schedule of units within the extensions and buildings hereby permitted, their current use and floor area (in both NANSA and NAGIA).

With regards Gross Internal Area the RICS definition contained in the Code of Measuring Practice 6th Edition shall be used. The term Net Sales Area (NANSA) shall be defined with reference to the definition in the former PPS4 Good Practice Guide page 64.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, EIA, Retail Impact Assessment and the other submitted details assessed in relation to the development. To ensure that the development does not give rise to a greater portion of the finite quantum of both convenience and comparison shopping floorspace which is a key element in assisting to facilitate and deliver a Regional Town Centre within the Lakeside Basin. With regard (E), to facilitate monitoring of compliance with the condition.

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 7. The development (including all reserved matters and other matters submitted pursuant to this permission) shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement and ES Addendum submitted with the Outline Planning Permission, unless otherwise provided for in any of the conditions or subject to any alternative mitigation measures as may be approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority, provided that such measures do not lead to there being any significant environmental effects other that those assessed in the Environmental Statement and Addendum.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the principles of mitigation set out in the Environmental Statement in order to minimise the environmental effects of the development and ensure compliance with a range of development plan policies set out within the planning committee report.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

BREEAM 8. Prior to the commencement of construction, a certificate issued by or on behalf of The Building Research Establishment shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the design of the extensions and building(s) will achieve a BREEAM ‘Very Good’ Rating. This shall be supplemented by details of any measures that would need to be secured by the development fit out and a mechanism by which these will be secured. The development shall be built in accordance with the agreed measures and shall achieve a BREEAM ‘Very Good’ Rating. A BREEAM post construction review shall be undertaken confirming the BREEAM rating achieved for the extensions and buildings hereby permitted (with the exception of the multi-storey car park). This shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within 6 months of the completion of the development and in any event within 6 months of receipt by the applicant of a written request made by the Local Planning Authority in the event that not all phases are undertaken or completed.

Reason: To ensure that the development meets the objectives of energy efficiency in new building design and construction set out in LDF Core Strategy Policy PMD12 (Sustainable Buildings) and RSS Policy ENV7.

ON-SITE ENERGY MEASURES 9. The measures to be undertaken as set out in the ‘Energy Strategy and BREEAM Assessment’ (Dec 2011) and Hilson Moran letter of the 21.02.12 shall be undertaken. This includes;

- Passive and energy efficient design measures - The inclusion of energy efficient plant - Low carbon technologies including Air Source Heat Pumps and a Photovoltaic array of a minimum of 671 m2 - Additional Solar Hot Water System to serve the 3rd floor toilets of the existing mall

Each application for Reserved Matters for buildings or extensions pursuant to condition 2 part (a) ‘layout’ and part (c) ‘appearance’ attached to this permission shall contain a statement advising how it has regard to the ‘Energy Strategy and BREEAM Assessment’ (Dec 2011) and incorporated, as appropriate, the measures contained therein including;

- Detail how the proposed building design(s) realise(s) opportunities to incorporate passive and energy efficient design measures - Detail how this phase will contribute to the development as a whole securing energy from decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources; - Detail how the proposed includes energy efficient plant.

Development shall be in strict accordance with the agreed details. The measures set out in the ‘Energy Strategy and BREEAM Assessment’ (Dec 2011) shall be undertaken as part of the development and in any event shall be undertaken prior to occupation of the final phase of development. In addition to the above, the applicant will undertake the measures specified at paragraph 4.1.7 of the ‘Energy Strategy and BREEAM Assessment’ (Dec 2011) to encourage retail tenants to maximise their energy efficiency design and operation. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

Reason: To ensure the proposal incorporates energy efficiency measures and renewable or low-carbon technology to minimise emissions, in order to minimise the environmental effects of the development and in accordance with RSS Policy ENG1 and LDF Core Strategy Policies PMD12, PMD13 and PMD14.

LANDSCAPE SCHEME 10. The Reserved Matters details to be submitted in accordance with Condition 2 Part (e) ‘Landscaping’ shall include a Landscape Scheme relating to site (or phase in according with the phasing plan) and shall include, but not be limited to, details of:

(a) Trees, hedgerows and other landscape features to be removed, retained, restored or reinforced,

(b) The location, species and size of all new plants, trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be planted, those areas to be grassed and/or paved, and for a programme of planting, transplanting and maintenance,

(d) Surfacing materials,

(e) Construction methods in the vicinity of retained trees and hedges, including protection measures in accordance with BS4428 and BS5837:2005,

(f) Pit design for tree planting within streets or areas of hard landscaping,

(g) Existing and proposed levels comprising spot heights, gradients and contours, grading, ground modelling and earth works,

(h) Locations and specifications and product literature relating to street furniture including signs, seats, bollards, planters, refuse bins,

(i) Boundary treatments and means of enclosure with particulars of locations, heights, designs, materials and types of all boundary treatments to be erected on site,

(j) Whether such land shall be accessible by the public

(k) How the landscaping scheme proposed promotes ecological interests and biodiversity in a manner which accords with the Environmental Statement accompanying the application (including the installation of bird, bat and invertebrate roosting and nesting boxes to accord with the ES, para K6.7 and an additional habitat for stag beetle para K6.8)

(l) Programme of Implementation and maintenance and an ecological management plan (to accord with para K6.9 of the Environmental Statement accompanying the outline application).

The Landscaping Scheme, associated works and play areas shall be completed in accordance with the approved programme that has been approved as part of the reserved matters. Any newly planted tree, shrub or hedgerow dying, uprooted, severely damaged or seriously diseased or existing tree, shrub or hedgerow to be retained, dying, severely PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

damaged or seriously diseased, within a period of 5 years from completion of the landscape scheme shall be replaced within the next planting season with others of the same species and of a similar size, unless the Local Planning Authority gives prior written consent to any variation. Management and maintenance of the open space and landscaped shall be in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily integrated with its immediate surroundings, enables high quality design, incorporates measures to promote biodiversity in accordance with the ES. To accord with LDF Core Strategy Policies ENV7, CSTP22, PMD2 and the principles for the creation of a Regional Town Centre detailed in RSS Policy ETG2.

MOVEMENT NETWORK 11. Application(s) for approval of Reserved Matters for a phase pursuant to Condition 2 Parts (a) ‘Layout’ and (d) ‘Means of Access’ shall include (where applicable) the following details:

(a) Movement network including layout of internal roads, visibility splay(s), sightlines, accesses, turning space(s), footways, cycleways and crossings. The details to be submitted shall include plans and sections indicating design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction. It shall also detail how that phase fits into a comprehensive movement network for the totality of the site and links off site.

(b) External lighting (including to roads, car parking areas, footways / cycleways) and shall include details of the spread and intensity of light together with the size, scale and design of any light fittings and supports and a timescale for its installation. The external lighting shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and timescales.

(d) Surface finishes,

(e) Cycle parking

(f) amended layout for car parking,

(g) Signage,

(h) Drainage (including to roads, car parking areas, footways / cycleways)

(i) Timescale for the provision of this infrastructure. Footpath / cycle paths shall be a minimum of 2.5m wide.

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timescales or in accordance with any variation first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The application as submitted does not give particulars sufficient for the consideration of the Reserved Matters. To ensure the comprehensive planning and design of the site and the timely delivery of infrastructure, in the interests of safety, amenity, sustainability and meeting the objectives of creating a Regional Town Centre. To accord with RSS Policies T1, T2, T4, T8, T9, T13, WAT4, ETG6, ENV7 and the objectives of PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

ETG2 and compliance with LDF Core Strategy Polices CSSP2, CSSP5, CSTP14, CSTP16, CSTP18, CSTP22, CSTP27, PMD2, PMD10, PMD15.

NEW BUS STATION 12. The Reserved Matters for the new bus station hereby permitted submitted pursuant to Condition 2 shall include;

(a) details of the layout of the bus station including the surrounding road layout and the provision of 10 bus stands, (b) details of the bus stands and kerbs, (c) details of signage, (d) a detailed swept path analysis of the proposed layout of the bus station, (e) details of the testing of the proposed layout using a bus or buses designed to use the bus station, (f) details of Real Time Passenger Transport Information (RTPI) displays within the new bus station and wider Lakeside Shopping Centre, (g) details of elements of Quality Bus Partnership in accordance with email on the 13/03 ‘Note on Future Bus Infrastructure’, (h) details of the bus driver’s facilities at the new Bus Station, (i) details of measures to provide a safe and secure environment is provided for users of the bus station and bus station staff, (j) details of the arrival square to the north of the bus station complex, (k) details of the pocket garden to the east of the new retail unit ref: LSC4b, (l) detail how the bus station can be expanded in the future to accommodate 12 bus stands and the Arrival square re-provided within the site (m) details of pedestrian and cycle links to the bus station,

Development shall be in strict accordance with the approved details. Following the opening of the bus station, no development shall be undertaken to preclude access to the bus station by scheduled bus services. The signage, RTPI, Quality Bus Partnership measures and drivers facilities shall be retained and maintained unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Notwithstanding condition 4 (phasing), the bus station shall be constructed, completed and operational prior to the occupation of any retail floorspace hereby permitted.

Reason: To ensure that the reserved matters are accompanied with adequate details of the new bus station, associated infrastructure and the potential for future expansion. In the interests of providing facilities that promote the use of public transport, in accordance with RSS Policies T1, T2, T13, and the objectives of Policy ETG2, together with LDF Core Strategy Policies CSSP3, CSTP14, CSTP15 and CSTP16.

TEMPORARY BUS STATION 13. Prior to the closure of the existing bus station, a detailed scheme for the temporary bus station within the area detailed on Parameters Plan 6 (306c) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include;

(a) details of the layout of the temporary bus station including the surrounding road layout and the provision for 8 bus stands (b) details of signage (c) details of the bus stands and kerbs, (d) a swept path analysis of the proposed layout of the temporary bus station (e) details of the bus driver’s facilities at the temporary Bus Station PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

(f) re-provision of disabled parking displaced by the temporary bus station

The temporary bus facility and re-provision of disabled parking shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details in advance of the cessation of use of the existing bus station. The temporary bus station shall not be closed or obstructed until such time as the permanent bus station is operational. The temporary bus station shall be signed within Lakeside Shopping Centre.

Reason: The application as submitted does not give particulars sufficient for the consideration of detailed layout and operation of the temporary bus station. Such details being in the interests of maintaining an accessibility and safe bus station.

LINK TO CHAFFORD HUNDRED RAIL STATION 14. Prior to the commencement of development of that phase (approved in accordance with condition 4 of this permission) within which the New Bus Station is proposed, a detailed scheme for the improvement / renovation of the lift core from Lakeside Shopping Centre to Chafford Hundred Rail Station shall be submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include but not necessarily be limited to ;

(a) Upgrading the lifts (b) Improvements to the internal fabric of the stair core (c) Details of access to and from the lift core to the surrounding public realm and buildings. (d) Details of any restriction upon the hours of use / access (e) Timescale for the works

Notwithstanding the above, the stair and lift core shall be accessible from out with the bus station and store, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved details and timescale. The level of access agreed shall be maintained (unless in the event of an emergency or maintenance).

The application as submitted does not give particulars sufficient for the consideration of detailed layout and operation of the temporary bus station. Such details being in the interests of maintaining an accessibility and safe bus station.

Reason: The application does not give particulars sufficient for the consideration of the detail. To securing more sustainable movement patterns and improved accessibility for pedestrians in accordance with the objectives of RSS Policy ETG2 and LDF Core Strategy Policy CSTP14. To ensure that sufficient access is provided to the bridge and Chafford Hundred and associated rail station out with the opening hours of the store.

CYCLE PARKING 15. Applications for approval of Reserved Matters for a phase including retail development pursuant to Condition 2 (parts (a) ‘Layout’ (d) ‘Means of Access’ shall include; details of the number, size, location, design and materials of secure and weather protected cycle parking facilities to serve the development. Such provision shall be in accordance with the following standard (unless a variation to these standards is first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority): 1 space per 500sq.m of additional retail floorspace. Such cycle parking facilities as approved under reserved matters shall be installed on site prior to the occupation of the units they serve and shall thereafter be permanently retained for sole use for cycle parking. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

Reason: To reduce reliance on the use of private cars, in the interests of sustainability, highway safety and amenity, in accordance with the objectives of RSS Policy ETG2 and LDF Core Strategy Policies CSTP14 and PMD8.

PATH ALONG THE EASTERN EDGE OF LAKE ALEXANDRA 16. Notwithstanding the illustrative sections, the reserved matters submission pursuant to condition 2 Part (d) (access) shall include details of the path along the eastern edge of Lake Alexandra, viewing point onto Alexandra Lake and a new pedestrian crossing, the location of which is detailed in blue on plan ‘Proposed street networks within Lakeside Shopping Centre’, ref: 9V7636/RH10 REV D1. The details shall include;

- widening of the path; - a focal viewing point onto Alexandra Lake - a new pedestrian crossing over the north-south street running between Alexandra Lake and existing LSC multi-storey car park (Car Park C - white)

Development shall be in strict accordance with the approved detail.

Reason: Such additional information is required as the illustrative section submitted with the application detailing a 1.5m high parapet wall with mesh infill along the boundary between the footway and the area edging Lake Alexandra is not considered an acceptable treatment of the Lake edge and provides a further disconnect between the public realm and the lake. Such additional information is required to secure acceptable measures and to assist in delivering more sustainable movement patterns and improved accessibility for pedestrians, objectives of RSS Policy ETG2 and LDF Core Strategy Policy CSTP14.

REMEDIATION SCHEME 17. Development (other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation) must not commence until parts 1 to 4 of this condition have been complied with.

(PART 1) Site Characterisation and Remediation Strategy;

Prior to the commencement of development the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority:

A) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:

• all previous uses;

• potential contaminants associated with those uses;

• a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors;

• potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

B) A site investigation scheme, based on (A) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

C) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (B) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

D) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (C) are complete and identifying any requirements PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

(PART 2) Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme;

The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development (other than that required to carry out remediation). The Local Planning Authority shall be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

(PART 3) Verification Plan;

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme and prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the local planning authority.

(PART 4) Reporting of Unexpected Contamination;

If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted to, and obtained written approval from, the Local Planning Authority for an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors, in accordance with NPPF and LDF Policy PMD1.

LANDFILL / GROUND GAS 18. The development / use hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a comprehensive site survey has been undertaken to:

a) determine the existence, depth, extent and character of any filled ground.

b) determine the existence, extent and concentrations of any landfill gas with potential to reach the application site.

A copy of the site survey findings together with a scheme to bring the site to a suitable condition in that it represents an acceptable risk including detailing measures to contain, manage and/or monitor any landfill gas with a potential to reach the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with, the Local Planning Authority prior to, the commencement of development hereby permitted. Formulation and implementation of the scheme shall be PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

undertaken by competent persons. Such agreed measures shall be implemented and completed in accordance with the agreed scheme. No deviation shall be made from this scheme.

Should any ground conditions or the existence, extent and concentrations of any landfill gas be found that was not previously identified or not considered in the scheme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, the site or part thereof shall be re-assessed in accordance with the above and a separate scheme to bring the site to a suitable condition in that it represents an acceptable risk shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Such measures shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme.

The developer shall give one month's advanced notice in writing to the Local Planning Authority of the impending completion of the agreed works. Within four weeks of completion of the agreed works a validation report undertaken by competent person or persons shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval.

Reason: Chapter H of the ES (Hilson Moran December 2011) indicates that there are elevated ground gas concentrations existing within the proposed development site and recommends further investigation. The report recommends gas protection measures post construction for the development (section H6.to H617). To ensure that any potential risks arising are properly assessed and that the development incorporates any necessary measures and subsequent management measures to satisfactorily deal with contamination / gases in the interests of amenity and public health, LDF Policy PMD1.

PILING 19. Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be used unless a report has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: Contamination has been identified at the site. The foundation piles in or through contaminated land has the potential to mobilise contaminants which can result in their release into the groundwater as identified in Para H6.16-19 of the ES. Mitigation is required to keep the groundwater in the vicinity of the site free from pollution.

CONSTRUCTION COMPOUND 20. All construction compounds and site offices for the development hereby permitted shall be erected within the Lakeside Shopping Centre site on either LSC Car Parks 7 or 8 as detailed in the Environmental Statement submitted with the outline planning application, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The ES considers three potential locations for the main construction compound being Pilgrims Lane, LSC Car Parks 7 and 8. Pilgrims Lane does not form part of the application site and its use as a construction compound would require a separate planning permission. Due to its Green Belt status, the use of the Pilgrims Lane site would be “inappropriate development”. Furthermore, there are traffic capacity issues on the Pilgrims Lane approach to the A1306 roundabout that would need to be addressed. Having regard to the ES and the Committee Report, the LSC Car Parks 7 and 8 are considered as acceptable for use as construction compounds. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ROUTING 21. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the routing of all construction vehicles shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The scheme (and any amendments) so approved shall be operated at all times.

Reason: In the interests of the safe and efficient operation of the highway network and highway safety.

CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (CEMP) 22. Prior to the commencement of demolition, remediation or development on any phase of the development, a site wide Construction Environment Management Plan (SW - CEMP) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority covering the totality of development. The SW-CEMP shall be in accordance with the details contained in the outline application (including ES para C4.79 and Section E6) and shall include, but not be limited to, details of; (a) Management structure with roles and responsibilities (b) Audit process (c) Risk register and risk management process (d) Training programme (e) External communication strategy (f) Performance monitoring procedure (g) Action plan for non compliance and incidence management

Areas to be dealt with within the SW-CEMP shall include;

1. Air quality 2. Ecology 3. Ground conditions and contamination 4. Noise & vibration 5. Water

This shall incorporate details of;

I. Hours and duration of any piling operations, II. Vehicle haul routing in connection with construction, remediation and engineering operations, III. Wheel washing and sheeting of vehicles transporting loose aggregates or similar materials on or off site, IV. Construction access or accesses; V. Location and size of on-site compounds (including the design layout of any proposed temporary artificial lighting systems) VI. Details of any temporary hardstandings; VII. Details of temporary hoarding; VIII. Method for the control of noise together with a monitoring regime (incorporating the mitigation measures detailed in sections F6.1 to F6.4 and F6.5 to F6.2 of the ES) IX. Measures to reduce vibration and mitigate the impacts on sensitive receptors together with a monitoring regime X. Measures to control dust and other particulate emissions including those measures detailed in sections E6.0 to E6.5 of the ES Dust and air quality mitigation and monitoring (to have regard to the measures outlined in the Environmental Statement PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

para 9.7 - 9.77 accompanying the application), XI. Water management including waste water and surface water discharge, XII. Method statement for the prevention of contamination of soil and groundwater and air pollution, including the storage of fuel and chemicals, XIII. Ecology and environmental protection and mitigation, XIV. Community liaison including a method for handling and monitoring complaints, contact details for site managers. XV. Measures to report and deal with areas of unforeseen contamination that may be encountered during construction. XVI. Details of construction phasing and which areas will be covered by a site / phase specific CEMP.

Development shall be undertaken in accordance with the SW-CEMP. Site or phase specific CEMP’s (SS-CEMP) shall be prepared for each phase or stage of development, each shall accord with the SW-CEMP. The SS-CEMP shall deal with constraints and impacts associated with a specific phase or site and shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development within a phase detailed within the SW-CEMP. All works and development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved SW-CEMP / SS-CEMP and the measures contained therein.

Reason: In the interests of protecting amenity, highway safety, sustainability, minimising impact upon the environment and ecology and ensuring that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other off-site receptors. To accord with the ES and LDF Policy PMD1.

WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 23. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed Waste Management Plan (WMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The WMP shall include details of;

(a) the anticipated nature and volumes of construction waste (b) measures to minimise waste and maximise re-use (c) measures to ensure effective segregation of waste at source including waste sorting, storage, recovery and recycling facilities to ensure the maximisation of waste materials both for use within and outside the site. (d) Any other steps to ensure the minimisation of waste during construction (e) The location and timing of provision of facilities pursuant to criteria (b), (c) and (d) above

Unless otherwise agreed in writing, thereafter the implementation, management and monitoring of construction waste shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: To ensure the sustainable management of construction waste in accordance with the ES and LDF-CS Policy PMD12 (Sustainable Buildings).

HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION 24. No construction work in connection with the development shall take place on any Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor on any other day except between the following times: Monday to Friday 08:00 - 18:00 hours, Saturdays 08:00 - 1300 hours unless in association with an emergency. All site deliveries for the purposes of construction of the development hereby permitted should take place between the above hours. PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

Reason: To accord with the mitigation measures detailed at F6.2 of the ES. In the interest of residential amenity. To accord with LDF Policy PMD1.

CONSIDERATE CONTRACTOR 25. The Principle Contractor appointed shall be a member of the Considerate Contractor Scheme. Furthermore, prior to the commencement of development, A Good Neighbour Policy shall be produced, setting out how the local community will be informed of construction activity on site and raise issues with the developer including the measures set out in paragraphs C4.69-71 (Inclusive) of the ES (2011).

Reason: To limit the impacts of construction and to provide a mechanism to inform and engage the local community.

OIL, FUEL AND CHEMICAL STORAGE DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION 26. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels and chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks plus 10%. All filling points, vents gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any water course, land or underground strata. Associated pipe work shall be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow outlets shall be discharged downwards into the bund.

Reason: In order to avoid the pollution of ground water. To accord with LDF Policy PMD1.

LINK TO CHAFFORD HUNDRED RAILSTATION 27. During the construction phases access shall be maintained to the lift and stair core linking Lakeside Shopping Centre to Chafford Hundred Rail Station. All areas requiring access to and from the lift and stair core shall be hoarded off as necessary to safely segregate construction activity from members of the public and appropriate signage installed.

Reason: To accord with paragraph C4.30 of the ES and in the interests of maintaining access to the bridge and public transport in accordance with the objectives of RSS Policy ETG2 and LDF Core Strategy policy CSTP14.

PILING 28. No impact piling shall take place without the applicant submitting an assessment of the impact of such works and a scheme of mitigation (including the hours and duration of works) and it being approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall only take place in accordance with the agreed scheme and mitigation and the terms of any such approval.

Reason: To accord with Chapter H of the ES and to ensure that the development does not have an unduly detrimental effect on the amenities and enjoyment of residential properties or other commercial operators in the vicinity of the site. To accord with LDF Policy PMD1.

PUBLICALLY ACCESSIBLE DESIGN 29. All publically accessible areas as part of the development shall be designed to be accessible to and usable by disabled people, including wheel chair users, people with PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

sight impairment and people with prams and pushchairs. Any application for reserved matters pursuant to Condition 2 Parts (a) ‘Layout’, (d) ‘Means of Access or (e) ‘Landscaping’ shall be accompanied by an access statement. The statement shall demonstrate that all parts of the relevant phase of development, including the car parks and all external public areas, shall be designed to be accessible for all, including people with disabilities. Such details to include: How the layouts, including entrances, internal and external circulation spaces, car parking areas, directional signs, lighting levels and other relevant facilities are accessible, adaptable or otherwise accommodate those with mobility difficulties or visual impairments. Such provision to make the development fully accessible shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and made available before each phase of the development is first occupied and thereafter maintained as such.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of future users and visitors in accordance with the Councils policies and practice for access for people with disabilities and in accordance with the provisions of Section 76 (1), (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and LDF CS Policy CSTP22.

SHOPMOBILITY AND DISABLES PARKING PROVISION 30. Prior to the occupation of any part of the development, details of the provision for Shopmobility centre and disabled parking spaces serving the development hereby permitted together with a timetable for their implementation shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The measures outlined in approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed scheme and timescale and thereafter maintained as such.

Reason: The application does not contain such details. The relocation of the bus station may have implications for the existing shopmobility provision. In the interests of the amenities of future users and visitors in accordance with the Councils policies and practice for access for people with disabilities and in accordance with the provisions of Section 76 (1), (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and LDF CS Policy CSTP22.

MATERIALS 31. No phase of development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the external construction (including surfacing materials for buildings and hard landscaping) for that phase, have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved samples.

For the purposes of this condition 'Development' shall exclude: site clearance, demolition, archaeological investigations, investigations for the purpose of assessing ground conditions, remedial work in respect of any contamination or other adverse ground conditions.

Reason: In the interest of amenity and to ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily integrated with its immediate surroundings as set out LDF Policy PMD1.

SECURE BY DESIGN 32. The Reserved Matters application pursuant to condition 2 Parts (a) ‘Layout’ and Part (c) ‘Appearance’ shall include a statement detailing the measures proposed to be incorporated into the development in order for the totality of the development hereby permitted, or those areas which qualify, to achieve Secure by Design accreditation. The PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

development, or any phase of development, shall not be occupied until the applicant has demonstrated in writing to the Local Planning Authority that it has achieved Secure by Design accreditation for those areas that qualify.

Reason: In the interest of creating safer, sustainable communities, reflecting guidance set out in NPPF and LDF-CS Policy CSTP22.

PARK MARK CERTIFICATION 33. Prior to the use of the multi-storey car park hereby permitted, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Local Planning Authority in writing that it has achieved ‘Park Mark Certification’.

Reason: In the interest of creating safer, sustainable communities, reflecting guidance set out in NPPF and LDF-CS Policies CSTP22.

CCTV 34. Prior to the occupation of a phase of the development (as identified in accordance with Condition 4) a scheme showing the details of a CCTV system to be installed for the safety of users and the prevention of crime, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No relevant phase of the development shall be occupied before the scheme is implemented as agreed.

Reason: In the interest of creating safer, sustainable communities, reflecting guidance set out in NPPF and LDF-CS Policies CSTP22.

POLICE 35. Details of the provision for Police (include toilet/washing, report writing and rest facilities, a secure cycle parking rack or bar) together with a timetable for their provision shall be submitted to and agreed within the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The agreed measures shall be provided in accordance with the timetable agreed pursuant to condition 4.

Reason: The application does not contain such details. In the interest of creating safer, sustainable communities, reflecting guidance set out in NPPF and LDF-CS Policies CSTP22.

NORTHERN STREET 36. The Reserved Matters application pursuant to condition 2 Parts (a) ‘Layout’ and Part (c) ‘Appearance’ incorporating the northern extensions reference LSC1, LSC2, LSC3a and LSC3b shall include a statement detailing the proposals conformity with the following design principles set out in the Design and Access Statement (p32) accompanying the outline permission;

a. Orientate buildings to provide optimum street frontage; b. Create a building line in harmony with the existing built environment; c. Maximise active street frontage; d. Avoid designs which are inward looking and which present blank frontages; e. Provide level access across the public realm; f. Provide good pedestrian access.

In addition; PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

g. How building ref: LSC2 will have an active eastern frontage

Reason: To accord with the Design and Access Statement accompanying the application. To promote high quality design in accord with Section 7 ‘Requiring good design’ of the NPPF, RSS Policy ENV7: Quality in the Built Environment and the ETG2 (Thurrock Key Centre for Development and Change) and LDF-CS policies PMD2 and CSTP22.

WIDTH OF PUBLIC SQUARE 37. Notwithstanding the illustrative sections, the Parameter Plans and condition 3, the street between buildings LSC2 and LSC3a shall have a minimum effective width of 10m when measured from the face of LSC2 to LSC3a.

Reason: Such measures are necessary as the lower ends of the width parameters proposed (i.e. from 7m) would impact upon the ability of this space to accommodate seating areas on-street and provide landscaping and sufficiently generous pedestrian movement network. Furthermore, with the potential height of the buildings (LSC3a up to 13m and LSC2 up to 17m) reducing the width below 10m could make this space feel unduly narrow. To promote high quality design in accord with Section 7 ‘Requiring good design’ of the NPPF, RSS Policy ENV7: Quality in the Built Environment and the ETG2 (Thurrock Key Centre for Development and Change) and LDF-CS policies PMD2 and CSTP22.

CAR PARKING ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC SQUARE 38. The reserved matters submission pursuant to condition 2 Part (d) ‘means of access’ shall include details of the surface car park detailed to the south of extension LSC3a and the public square on Parameters Plan 6 – ‘Landscaping / public realm and vehicle access works’, ref: 080141-D-306 C. Notwithstanding the illustrative detail accompanying the application, this part of the car park shall be designed to exclude car parking abutting or immediately parallel to the public square and building LSC3a. Furthermore, measures shall be employed to preclude unauthorised parking and to aid pedestrian and wheelchair permeability from the adjacent car park to the new public square.

Reason: The illustrative detail accompanying the application details a row of car parking abutting a significant proportion of the southern boundary of the proposed public square (D&A, p79, p103). This would not aid permeability or enhance the setting of the square. To promote high quality design in accord with Section 7 ‘Requiring good design’ of the NPPF, RSS Policy ENV7: Quality in the Built Environment and the ETG2 (Thurrock Key Centre for Development and Change) and LDF-CS policies PMD2 and CSTP22.

SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE 39. Development shall not commence until a detailed Surface Water Drainage Scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The Surface Water Drainage Scheme shall:

a) Accord with Part G of the ES accompanying the planning application; b) Assess whether there is an unacceptable risk to controlled waters from infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground post the approved works of remediation to the site pursuant to condition 17 of this permission; c) Detail all surface water from parking, servicing and manoeuvring areas being passed through a Class 1 oil interceptor prior to disposal to groundwater, watercourse or surface water sewer; PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

d) Include SUDS and infiltration drainage as a priority wherever this can be shown to be a practicable means for achieving surface water drainage for areas within the site; e) Unless otherwide not practical and feasible, means for all volumes of surface water generated on site in excess of the soakage capacity of the site's infiltration devices shall be attenuated on site for all storms up to and including the 1 in 100 year storm event (including agreed allowances for climate change over the development lifetime); f) Detail measures to provide for water source(s) for landscape irrigation (Para G6.34 of the ES) g) Detail associate infrastructure, including new headwalls and outfalls to Alexandra Lake if deemed necessary h) Include a timescale for undertaking the works; i) Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion.

The approved Surface Water Drainage Scheme shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details and timescale unless a variation to the timescale is first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The measures to maintain and manage the Surface Water Drainage Scheme shall be put in place and thereafter retained.

Reason: To assess and prevent the pollution of groundwater and flooding though development, to improve and protect water quality, to improve habitat and amenity, and to ensure that there are adequate arrangements determined for the future maintenance of the surface water drainage system, in accordance with LDF-CS Policies CSTP25, CSTP27, PMD1, PMD2 and PMD15.

FOUL WATER DRAINAGE 40. Development shall not commence until a Foul Water Drainage Strategy to serve the totality of the development hereby permitted has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall include details of the means of connection, phasing of provision and capacity of the receptor system. The Foul Water Drainage Strategy shall accord with Part G of the ES accompanying the planning application. The foul water drainage systems shall be constructed in accordance with the approved strategy and maintained thereafter in accordance with it. There shall be no occupation of any building or extension hereby permitted until the approved foul water drainage system is in place. For the purposes of this condition 'Development' shall exclude: site clearance, demolition, investigations for the purpose of assessing ground conditions, remedial work in respect of any contamination or other adverse ground conditions.

Reason: To prevent the increase in flood risk, pollution and detriment to public amenity through provision of suitable water infrastructure, in accordance with NPPF and LDF Policies PMD1, PMD2 and PMD15.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS 41. Demolition and clearance of vegetation or other potential bird nesting sites shall not be st undertaken within the breeding season of birds (i.e. within 1 March to the end to August) except where a suitably qualified ecological consultant has confirmed in writing that such clearance works would not affect any nesting birds.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of the ES (para K2) and ensure effects of the development upon the natural environmental are adequately mitigated and in order to PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

comply with LDF Policy PMD7.

VIEWING PLATFORM IN ALEXANDRA LAKE 42. Construction of the viewing platform in Alexandra Lake shall use low impact construction methods and timing set out within K6.6 of the Environmental Statement accompanying the planning application.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of the ES (para K2) and ensure effects of the development upon the natural environmental are adequately mitigated and in order to comply with LDF Policy PMD7.

PLANT NOISE 43. Prior to the installation of any external plant, machinery and equipment associated with the development hereby permitted, a scheme of soundproofing which specifies how the external plant, machinery and equipment will not exceed the noise emission limits specified at table F12 of the ES (page 23). This will include measures to be implemented to achieve plant noise limits set out in table F12. In addition, it shall set out noise emission limits for areas within the site for which external plant, machinery and equipment associated with the development will be sited and the measures required to ensure these limits are not exceeded. Development shall be in strict accordance with the agreed scheme of soundproofing and measures contained therein. At no point shall the external plant, machinery and equipment exceed the noise emission limits set out in Table F12 or the external plant, machinery and equipment noise emission exceed the limits set for an individual area set within the agreed scheme. The applicant shall ensure alterations to or the introduction of new plant or equipment post substantial completion of the development does not exceed the cumulative noise levels set within Table F12 or for an individual area.

Reason: To accord with the mitigation measures set out within the ES accompanying the planning application, in the interests of amenity of sensitive receptors. To accord with LDF Policy PMD1.

VENTILATION OF HOT FOOD USES 44. Prior to the occupation of any unit within the development for Use Class A3 (Restaurants and Cafes), A4 (Drinking Establishments) and A5 (Hot Food Take-away) purposes, details of any mechanical ventilation or other plant associated with such a unit shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority such details to include specification of filtration, deodorising systems, noise output and termination points. The approved ventilation equipment and / or other plant shall be installed and commissioned prior to the occupation of that unit and shall be maintained in proper working order thereafter throughout the occupation of the unit for Use Class A3 (Restaurants and Cafes), A4 (Drinking Establishments) and A5 (Hot Food Take-away) purposes.

Reason: The application contains no such details. Such measures are required in the interests of amenity and to accord with LDF Policy PMD1.

A5 (HOT FOOD TAKE-AWAY USES) 45. Notwithstanding conditions attached to this permission, the location of any A5 (Hot Food Take-away) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority together with details of vehicular access arrangements. The unit shall not be used for A5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

(Hot Food Take-away) unless the details are first agreed in writing. The unit shall only be used in accordance with the approved details and such details shall be maintained thereafter throughout the occupation of the unit for Use Class A5.

Reason: The application contains no such details. Such measures are required in the interests of amenity and the safe and efficient operation of the road network.

NOTIFICATION 46. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing within 7 days of the dates of the following: a) Implementation of planning permission; b) Commencement of a new phase of development; c) Completion of each phase of development; Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control and monitor the site to ensure compliance with the planning permission.

INFORMATIVES

1 Informative from the Environment Agency;

(A) - For development involving piling or other penetrative ground improvement methods on a site potentially affected by contamination a suitable Foundation Works Risk Assessment based on the results of a site investigation and any remediation, should be undertaken. This assessment should underpin the choice of founding technique and any mitigation measures employed, to ensure the process does not cause, or create preferential pathways for, the movement of contamination into the underlying aquifer.

(B) - Should soakaways or other infiltration systems be proposed for the disposal of surface water, we would comment a follows:

 Soakaways or other infiltration systems shall only be used in areas on site where they will not present a risk to groundwater, with the depth of soakaway kept to a minimum to ensure that the maximum possible depth of unsaturated material remains between the base of the soakaway and the top of the water table, ensuring that a direct discharge of surface water into groundwater is prevented.  Soakaways shall not be constructed in land affected by contamination, where they may promote the mobilisation of contaminants and give rise to contamination of groundwater.  Only clean water from roofs shall be directly discharged to soakaway.  Systems for the discharge of surface water from associated hard-standing, roads and impermeable vehicle parking areas shall incorporate appropriate pollution prevention measures.

(C) - Any culverting or works affecting the flow of a watercourse requires the prior written Consent of the Environment Agency under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991/Water Resources Act 1991. The Environment Agency seeks to avoid culverting, and its Consent for such works will not normally be granted except as a means of access.

(D) - If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then site operator must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012

authorised facility.

(E) - Applicants should be aware that if any controlled waste is to be used on the site the operator will need to obtain the appropriate authorisation from us. We are unable at this time to specify what exactly would be required due to the limited amount of information provided. If the operator wishes more specific advice they will need to contact the Environment Management Team on 01473 706367 or look at available guidance on our website http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/waste.

(F) - In England it is a legal requirement to have a site waste management plan (SWMP) for all new construction projects worth more than £300,000.The level of detail that your SWMP should contain depends on the estimated build cost, excluding VAT. You must still comply with the duty of care for waste. Because you will need to record all waste movements in one document, having a SWMP will help you to ensure you comply with the duty of care. Further information can be found at http://www.netregs-swmp.co.uk. 2 The applicant is reminded that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (section 1) it is an offence to take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while the nest is in use or being built. Planning consent for a development does not provide a defence against prosecution under this Act. Trees and scrub are likely to contain nesting birds between 1 March and 31 July. Any trees and scrub present on the application site should be assumed to contain nesting birds between the above dates unless survey has shown it absolutely certain that nesting birds are not present. The RSPB publish a booklet “Wild Birds and the Law”. English Nature also produces Guidance Notes relating to Local Planning and Wildlife Law – both of which are useful. 3 This notice relates to the requirements for planning permission under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). You may require permission under the Building Regulations before commencing with this development. 4 Reason for approval [to be inserted in the event that Members are minded to approve to application]

PLANNING COMMITTEE 26 July 2012