AGENDA ITEM 8

COMMITTEE: DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

DATE: 13th AUGUST 2014

SUBJECT: B&Q PLC, ROAD – CHANGE OF USE, ALTERATIONS AND SUB-DIVISION OF EXISTING B&Q WAREHOUSE TO FORM A SMALLER NON- FOOD UNIT (B&Q) AND A NEW A1 RETAIL UNIT, TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND ACCESS (APPLICANT: WM MORRISON SUPERMARKETS PLC AND B&Q PLC) (APPLICATION NO: 13/01615/FUL)

REPORT BY: DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER

CONTACT OFFICER: DAVID GAUNTLETT 546317

IMPLICATIONS:

LEGAL COMMUNITY SAFETY

EQUALITIES ENVIRONMENT

FINANCIAL CONSULTATIONS

STAFFING OTHER

WARDS AFFECTED: DALLOW

PURPOSE

1. To advise Members of a current application for planning permission and to seek their decision.

RECOMMENDATION(S)

2. It is recommended that planning permission is refused for the following reasons:

(01) The proposal would result in an unsustainable form of development that fails to meet the Sequential Test in NPPF and as such the proposal is contrary to Policies LP1 and S1 of the Local Plan and NPPF(27)

(02) The proposed development would have a significantly adverse impact on town centre vitality and viability and the planned investment in Luton Town Centre. As such the proposal fails to meet the Investment Impact test as set out in NPPF and would thereby be contrary to Policies LP1 and S1 of the Luton Local Plan and NPPF(27)

(03) As a result of the applicant’s failure to satisfactorily assess the effect of the proposal on the local highway network and therefore in the absence of information to the contrary, it is anticipated that the proposed development would result in increased trip generation on the local highway network at a busy roundabout junction that would further exacerbate the problems associated with the free flow of traffic to the further detriment of the quality of the local environment. The proposal would thereby be contrary to Policies LP1 and T3 of the Luton Local Plan and NPPF(32)

REPORT

The Site and Surroundings

3. The application site is an irregular area of land measuring approximately 3.4 hectares. The site is occupied by a large commercial warehouse building currently occupied by B&Q for DIY-based retail purposes, with a footprint covering some 11,000sq.metres. The remainder of the site comprises hardstanding in the form of a 495 space car park and associated service road and yards.

4. The site also comprises an Aldi supermarket to the north and an undeveloped area of land to the east that has planning permission for a restricted retail unit with associated parking. The wider area comprises the Hatters Way relief road and the Hatters Way retail park to the north, the Bilton way and Dallow Road Key Employment Areas to the east and south and the Cosgrove Way Key Employment Area to the west. The site is located approximately 1.6 miles to the west of the town centre. District Centre lies 1.1 miles to the east and Marsh Road District Centre lies 1.3 miles to the north. Relevant Planning History

5. Planning permission was granted on the site originally in 1994 but the original B&Q building was found to have construction problems and had to be demolished. A replacement building was granted planning permission in 2005 and has been fully constructed and occupied and is now the subject of this application.

The Proposal

6. Planning permission is sought to sub-divide the existing retail unit to provide a reduced store for B&Q and to allow a foodstore (Morrisons) to operate from the newly created unit. The existing mezzanine floor within the building is to be removed and replaced with a new mezzanine level within the B&Q element of the new layout, which will measure 1,440 sq.metres.

7. B&Q would occupy the smaller half of the building on the western side, with the total gross floorspace measuring 4,833 sq.metres. The total sales area provided would amount to 3,542 sq.metres (38,127 sq.feet).

8. Morrisons would occupy the larger half of the building on the eastern side, with the total gross floorspace measuring 6,777 sq.metres. The total sales area provided would amount to 3,989 sq.metres (42,938 sq.feet). The following table is taken from the Planning and Retail Statement by Peacock and Smith (submitted with the planning application), and identifies the floorspace schedule for the building, identifying existing and proposed floor areas for both gross and net (or sales) areas:

B&Q Morrison‟s Combined

GEA GIA Net GEA GIA Net GEA GIA Net

Existing 11,127 10,162 08,938 - - - 11,127 10,162 08,938

Proposed 5,656 4,833 3,542 6,940 6,777 3,989 12,583 11,610 7,531

Difference -5,484 -5,329 -5,396 6,940 6,777 3,989 1,456 1,448 -1,407

*Figures represent Square Metres *GEA = Gross External Area *GIA = Gross Internal Area *Net = Total Sales Area

9. The existing car park associated with the unit will remain as a shared facility. It is to be reconfigured to include improved disabled provision and to create spaces for parent/toddlers but this will result in a reduction of 31 spaces, bringing the car park total down to 464 spaces.

Planning Policy Implications

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

10. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012. It sets out to rationalise national policy guidance and how the government‟s planning policies are expected to be applied. The core principle of the Framework is a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”. However, this does not change the status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Planning law requires that applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions and is referred to appropriately in the report.

Planning Practice Guidance – Ensuring the vitality of town centres

11. This guidance was published in March of this year in support of the NPPF policy issues relating to town centres and town centre uses.

The adopted Luton Local Plan 2001-2011

12. The site has no designation on the Local Plan Proposals Map. The relevant policies to this proposal are policies LP1, S1 and T3

13. Policy LP1 sets out a sustainable development strategy for the borough and is generally supportive of development proposals provided that, amongst other things, they do not conflict with the environmental, social, economic, transportation or other principles of sustainable development.

14. Policy S1 provides the principal policy advice for retail developments in the Borough and states that the preferred sequence for locations of retail development should be in appropriate existing centres designated on the Development Plan followed by edge-of-centre locations, with out-of-centre locations being the least favourable.

15. Policy T3 is concerned with the traffic implications of development. Permission will only be granted if the proposal would not exacerbate road congestion; cause safety problems; or be likely to cause demonstrable harm to the quality of the environment

The emerging Luton Local Plan

16. The Council is preparing a new draft Luton Local Plan which will cover the 20 year period from 2011 to 2013. A public consultation is currently in progress which ends on 22nd August. The Pre-submission plan is programmed for consultation in the following winter followed by examination by an Inspector in the summer of 2015. The draft plan will be referred as appropriate in the report.

Consultation Responses

17. Highway Development Manager: Has advised that there is insufficient information given to provide evidence that the development would be acceptable with regards to its impact and has therefore objected to the development on the basis of its potential impact on the surrounding highway network.

18. Strategic Planning: Advises that the application should be refused on the basis that the proposed development fails the required sequential test and is contrary to both local and national planning policy, and has the potential to adversely affect the regeneration of the town centre.

19. Central Beds Council: No response has been received. Any comments made will be reported at the Meeting.

20. Environmental Protection: Has no comments to make.

21. Police Architectural Liaison Officer: Has no objections to the proposed development.

22. Parks Division: No response has been received.

23. Statutory Publicity: The application has been notified to 17 adjoining occupiers and a significant number of site notices have been displayed in the surrounding area. A Press Notice has also been displayed. In total 35 representations have been received with 29 in favour of the proposals and 6 raising objections. A petition containing 23 signatures has also been received, which is in favour of the development. The representations of support have been received wholly from residents, and comments relate to the following:

 Favour the potential presence of the specific operator (Morrisons)  Positive job creation  It would increase choice  It would secure the long-term future of B&Q  Conveniently located to Dallow Road

24. The concerns about the development from residents, are as follows:

 Existing and increased impact on traffic congestion to the surrounding highway network.  Proximity to two local schools  Area is already well served by traders (Tesco, Aldi and Sainsbury‟s) and no need for any additional

25. Other representations have been received from neighbouring businesses or interested parties. Amongst those representations are objections to the development from Indigo (an independent planning consultancy) and GVA (a property management consultancy, acting for British Land (Power Court)), Whilst the representations are referred to in more detail in the main planning considerations, the objections that have been raised relate to the following:

 Existing and increased impact on traffic congestion to the surrounding highway network.  Impact on parking numbers on the site  the impact assessment submitted in respect of the proposed Morrisons application does not adequately or robustly assess its likely impact, particularly on Luton town centre or the nearby Bury Park District Centre  It will have a negative impact on planned investment in Luton Town Centre (specifically at the Power court site)  It will have a negative impact on the vitality and viability of Luton town centre

MAIN PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

26. The main planning considerations relate to the extent to which the proposed development accords with the retail policies of the local plan and the NPPF Section 2, which relates to ensuring the vitality of town centres and the acceptability of the development in terms of its associated highway implications and parking, and the impact of the development on the street scene, the amenities of the adjoining occupiers and design.

Acceptability of Development

27. The policy guidance contained within the NPPF reiterates the „Town Centres First‟ principle for retail developments alongside the continuing requirement for sequential and impact tests, where proposals are put forward for development not located within a designated centre. The guidance within the NPPF places a requirement on developers to provide technical justification for retail schemes, particularly where they are not located within existing centres. Where local policy does not provide guidance, impact assessments are required for schemes above 2,500 sq. metres, which should consider a 10-year period of impact for major developments in order to appreciate its long-term effects. Such assessments must also consider the impact on planned public and private investment in existing centres within the catchment of proposed development.

28. Paragraph 37 of the NPPF is linked to the creation of policies, but the general thrust of this paragraph is to encourage a balance of land uses within areas so that people can be encouraged to minimise journey lengths for employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities.

29. National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) was introduced in 2014 to support the NPPF and at Chapter 2 “Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres” the guidance echoes the thrust of policy contained within the NPPF. It goes on to advise, at Para 27, that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact, then it should be refused.

30. Policy S1 provides the principal policy advice for retail developments in the Borough and states that the preferred sequence for locations of retail development should be in appropriate existing centres designated on the Development Plan followed by edge-of-centre locations, with out-of-centre locations being the least favourable. This policy is generally supportive of retail development provided that, amongst other things it is demonstrated that there are no suitable or alternative sites higher in the retail hierarchy; the vitality and viability of any shopping policy area is not adversely affected by the proposal and that a demonstrable need is identified where not in a centrally located site.

31. The Council is in the process of bringing forward a new local plan and a draft is currently out to public consultation. Emerging policies within that plan include those linked to the town centre and retail. Policy LP3 (Luton Town Centre Strategy) seeks to provide a mix of uses, including 3,700 sq.metres of convenience floorspace at Power Court to create a vibrant and mixed town centre for positive residential and economic growth. Of relevance to later paragraphs, the emerging plan also seeks to provide a continuation of mixed-use policy allocations to Power Court (LP9 Power Court) and the Northern Gateway (LP11 Creative Quarter).

32. In addition to local and national planning policy, the Council commissioned White Young Green (WYG) to undertake a Retail Study in 2005, which was updated in 2009 and then refreshed in 2012 in order to inform Luton‟s consideration of retail applications and to provide an evidence base for the emerging Local Plan. The Study Refresh (2012) identifies that the town centre currently has a relatively weak convenience goods offer for a centre the size of its catchment. Accordingly the need for a large town centre- based anchor foodstore that is capable of principally meeting main food shopping needs remains for the central area. This will draw a significant amount of visitors, especially when it is linked to the core shopping area. Outside of the Central Area it is identified that a number of the main foodstores exhibit significant levels of overtrading, which is an indication of quantitative need for additional facilities in order to overcome congested shopping environments. As a result of this, the strategy options contained in the Refresh Study recommended that a new convenience foodstore of approximately 3,700 sq.metres net floorspace be located at Power Court, an edge-of-centre site. The delivery of this level of floorspace would be cumulative, and this indicates that following this, the next opportunity for the delivery of a scheme of a similar size would be 2026 at the earliest, some 12 years later. For the purpose of avoiding harm to the viability of a town centre scheme (recommended to be Power Court) the Refresh study specifically warns against the delivery of any scheme outside the Town Centre.

33. Areas surrounding the application site are relatively well-served, comprising a competitive mix of retailers operating out of different-sized stores. There is a Tesco superstore located approximately 1.3 miles to the west ( Road ()) and a J Sainsbury superstore located approximately 1.3 miles to the east (Dunstable Road (Bury Park)). Smaller discount foodstores in the form of Aldi (Dallow Road (same site as the application proposal) and Lidl (Dunstable Road (1.3 miles to the east)) also operate in the area. Notwithstanding these, the Marsh Road District Centre is a mile away to the north of the site, where there are four smaller food store providers (Co-operative, Iceland and Lidl as well as a Morrisons local), which contribute in the creation of a retail district of good vibrancy and vitality. Permission has also been granted to vary a condition to allow a large-format foodstore to operate from the PC-World Unit, approximately 0.3 miles to the north of the site at Madford Retail Park, (this has yet to be occupied).

34. As a result of the current application proposals to provide a significant offer of convenience foodstore floorspace outside of a town centre, the Council has sought to utilise WYG‟s historic involvement in retail matters linked to the town by commissioning them to carry out an appraisal of the Planning and Retail Statement (PRS) submitted in support of the application. In line with the thrust of local and national planning policy guidance, the appraisal by WYG is separated into two parts, looking at; 1) the sequential approach to the development and; 2) the impact assessment.

The Sequential Test

35. National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) describes the Sequential Test in the following way:

“The sequential test guides main town centre uses towards town centre locations first, then, if no town centre locations are available, to edge of centre locations, and, if neither town centre locations nor edge of centre locations are available, to out of town centre locations, with preference for accessible sites which are well connected to the town centre. It supports the viability and vitality of town centres by placing existing town centres foremost in both plan-making and decision-taking”

36. In the Northern Gateway (Policy CA5 (town centre)) and Power Court (Policy CA7 (edge-of-centre)) the Luton Local Plan has identified two strategic sites that are considered to be appropriate for major food-retail development, amongst other mixed-uses as part of wider regeneration of the town centre area. In addition to those identified sites, the Council has advised each of the „Big 4‟ foodstore operators (Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury and Tesco), of town centre sites considered available for consideration for foodstore development.

37. As part of their application submission the applicant has carried out a sequential test (contained in the PRS), which has looked at three potential alternative sites; being the Northern Gateway, Power Court and Napier Park. In carrying out the assessment of potential alternative sites, the applicant has considered the suitability and availability of each site and has taken into consideration the outcome of a Supreme Court case (Tesco Stores v Dundee City Council). That case decided that in applying the sequential test the question is whether there is any site which is „suitable for the development proposed by the applicant‟, not whether there is a site for „something less than that sought by the developer‟ or „suitable for meeting identified deficiencies in retail provision in the area‟.

38. In looking at the available sites as part of the test therefore, the applicant considers whether all of the elements that they require can be accommodated on in-centre or edge-of-centre sites as opposed to whether there are available sites in these centres, which could accommodate a smaller store. To accommodate the proposed development of 3,989 sq.metres (net) floorspace together with the associated parking provision, service yards and access and warehousing, the applicant has indicated that only those sequential sites measuring 1.4 hectares could suitably accommodate the development as currently configured. In its assessment of this approach in the applicant‟s PRS, WYG has considered this but in response, its estimation is that when taking account of the greater accessibility of town centre sites (and the availability of nearby shared car parks), a reduced car parking requirement would result, subsequently suggesting that smaller sites of 1 hectare could accommodate the development.

The Northern Gateway

39. In its appraisal of the Northern Gateway site the applicant‟s PRS identifies that the area has a number of physical constraints created by its location within the Plaiters Lea conservation area, which includes the River Lea corridor, existing contamination issues (at the former BP petrol filling station) and a number of buildings of historic value with some benefiting from Grade II listing. The PRS goes on to reject the suitability and availability of the site as it would not offer a practical alternative to the application site. This is largely due to the character and make-up of the site and the requirements set out in Policy CA5 (Northern Gateway) of the Luton Local Plan. The reasons for the rejection relate to four counts as follows:

 The requirement of policy to retain and enhance buildings of particular architectural merit or historical interest.  The requirement of policy for development to utilise the River Lea corridor in near proximity and use it as a feature of development.  The former BP Petrol Filling Station is subject to high levels of contamination, which would add a financial burden to any scheme. (*it should be noted that the site has actually been remediated and is not subject to contamination) . These provide significant barriers to site suitability  A foodstore being developed in isolation would not fit the requirements of the policy for a comprehensive mixed-use scheme. The site is comprised of several smaller sites in multiple ownership (including a number of active retail and commercial operations). It is unlikely that a site capable of accommodating a foodstore could be assembled in a reasonable period of time. . This provides a significant barrier to site availability

40. The assessment by WYG acknowledges that there would be difficulties in developing the Northern Gateway site as a whole and accepts the applicant‟s position that it would be undesirable to seek to amalgamate the entire site for the development of a foodstore. This echoes the opinion WYG took in its Retail Study Refresh (2012) where it considered the overall site to be unsuitable for a foodstore given that it has physical and heritage related constraints.

41. However the WYG assessment of the PRS does identify that, at an overall area of 4.5 hectares, the Northern Gateway site is of a size to accommodate the size of store proposed.

Bute Street Surface Car Park

42. One site that has not been considered by the applicant in their PRS is the existing surface car park at Bute Street in the location of the former bus station and multi-storey car park. This site alone measures approximately 0.74 hectares and is in the freehold ownership of the Council. The site sits adjacent to the Northern Gateway and is allocated as an improvement area for the central bus and railway stations. In the emerging local plan the wider site is earmarked for widespread regeneration. The site was identified in the letter sent out by the Council to the 4 major foodstore operators (see paragraph 36) as being potentially available for foodstore development.

43. In their assessment WYG has considered this as the first element of part of a wider site, with their plan split into three parts. The second element is the strip of land running adjacent to Station Road immediately to the north, which is also in the freehold ownership of the Council but is reserved by Network Rail until 2015. Measuring 0.5 hectares, when combined with the first element the site would have an overall area of 1.24 hectares. Whilst this would fall short of the applicant‟s calculated 1.4 hectare requirement, WYG considers, in its assessment that the accessibility of the town centre would not generate the same demand for on-site parking (see paragraph 38) and thus the lesser site area would be acceptable. Whilst the first two elements are considered sufficient to provide a comparable foodstore (albeit with a lesser parking provision), a third element, the former BP petrol filling station on Guildford Street, could be added to the wider site. This site is in single private ownership at present. This site measures 0.22 hectares in area, which would achieve the minimum area required by the applicant to provide a comparable offer to that at the application site.

44. The advice provided by WYG on this site is as follows:

“...even if part iii) did not come forward, parts i) and ii) appear to offer ample space within which to accommodate the application proposals accounting for a degree of flexibility. Moreover, taking into account the highly accessible nature of the site adjacent to the train and bus station and the multi-storey car parks serving the Mall and station, the site will not need the full scale of 464 car parking spaces proposed for the out-of-centre site on Dallow Road. Linked trips with the town centre will also be facilitated, thereby further reducing the demand for car parking. A degree of flexibility is therefore required in terms of scale and format in order to accommodate a food store of 6,777 sq m gross and associated servicing and warehousing space. Whilst there are levels differences between sites i), ii) and iii), the applicant would also be expected to demonstrate flexibility in seeking to overcome any issues arising”

45. WYG further indicates that the amalgamated site (whether the two element or three elements) is suitable for a foodstore development and is either available now, or it will be in 2015. Furthermore, it will be viable due to its size, topography and optimal location adjacent to the town centre and the rail/bus interchange. Most importantly WYG acknowledges that a foodstore in this location would satisfy the identified capacity shown in their Retail Study Refresh (2012) in a location that would provide an anchor store as part of an extension to the town centre. As a result, the site is also considered to be sequentially preferable to the application site.

Power Court

46. In its appraisal of the Power Court site the applicant‟s PRS identifies its character and size, and the intentions of Policy CA7 (Power Court) of the Luton Local Plan to accommodate a mixed-use development that is complementary to the town centre. Whilst acknowledging that the site would appear to be suitable for the proposed development in terms of its size, accessibility and configuration, it goes on to reject the site‟s suitability and availability on the following grounds.

 The requirement of policy to provide a mixed-use scheme that enhances the setting of St Mary‟s Church means the site is not suitable  The requirement of policy to provide appropriate treatments to the River Lea means the site is not suitable  The site is too large to put forward an application for a foodstore in isolation as it would not fit the requirements of the policy for a comprehensive mixed-use scheme 47. The conclusions that the site is not suitable is linked to the viability of development. The applicant‟s PRS refers to the consideration that must be given to the Grade I Listed St Mary‟s Church and the enhancements required to the River Lea corridor. It further seeks to support the viability argument by highlighting that no redevelopment options have come forward in recent years nor is a planning application currently under consideration, making mention of an undetermined outline application from 2005. WYG‟s Retail Study Refresh (2012) identifies Power Court as a potentially appropriate location for foodstore development to serve the recognised town centre need, stating that it is both available and suitable but viability is considered an issue. As of 2012 the sustained, lower economic climate had prevented the development of this site for a number of years, and whilst a foodstore has been considered as part of wider development of the site, appropriate adjoining uses that can achieve a positive economic return have not come forward resulting in regeneration opportunities being stalled.

48. The PRS also considers Power Court to be unavailable. The site is part- owned by British Land and discussions have been held between the applicant and British Land which according to the applicant indicated at that time a comprehensive development of the site would not be brought forward in the foreseeable future. However, in subsequent representations received from that agents acting on behalf of British Land, confirmation is provided of their commitment to providing a foodstore as part of a wider mixed-use redevelopment of the Power Court site. They have supplemented this with a further representation to update that situation, which explains that British Land have entered into fresh efforts to bring the site forward with the upturn in the economy. This includes seeking and gaining prior approvals for demolition of buildings on the site, the installation of a new Asset Manager and Development Manager to progress a foodstore-led redevelopment of the site, and the appointment of a consultancy team to advise on redevelopment plans.

49. In their assessment of the PRS, WYG has acknowledged this most recent representation and has taken the view that...”notwithstanding any historic delays to bring this site forwards which coincided with the economic downturn, there is considerable evidence to demonstrate that momentum is once again building on this site and that there is prospect of a foodstore coming forward within a reasonable period of time. Whilst it would be desirable to plan for a comprehensive redevelopment of the whole site, there seems no barrier to bringing forward a foodstore as phase 1 of that redevelopment. Indeed, this would no doubt assist in attracting other potential occupiers.”

50. When taking account of the existing policy allocation of the site (both existing and emerging policies) the WYG assessment disagrees with the applicants PRS and therefore finds that Power Court is a sequentially preferable site for development of a foodstore than that which is proposed at the application site.

Napier Park

51. The PRS also identified Napier Park in the Sequential Test but, as this is an “out-of-centre” site, it doesn‟t consider it to be sequentially preferable to the application site. The assessment by WYG considers this site, indicating that the out-of-centre sites have to be prioritised based on accessibility to the centre. Napier Park is closer to the centre in terms of walking distance. Napier Park also benefits from being in close proximity to rail connections although WYG acknowledges that very few shopping trips are carried out by train. Whilst it is considered to have better links to the town centre WYG, in its assessment judges both sites to be equal in terms of sequential preference.

Impact Assessment

52. As alluded to in paragraph 27, proposed retail developments of a certain scale (in this case 2,500 sq. metres +) outside of town centres should require an impact assessment in accordance with Paragraph 26 of the NPPF, which 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.

53. The NPPG advises that...”The purpose of the test is to ensure that the impact over time (up to five years (ten for major schemes)) of certain out of centre and edge of centre proposals on existing town centres is not significantly adverse. The test relates to retail, office and leisure development (not all main town centre uses) which are not in accordance with an up to date Local Plan and outside of existing town centres. It is important that the impact is assessed in relation to all town centres that may be affected, which are not necessarily just those closest to the proposal and may be in neighbouring authority areas.”

54. The NPPG sets out a series of seven steps that should be taken, when carrying out and impact test, and this has been completed by the applicant, contained in their PRS. This has been assessed by WYG in their appraisal of the PRS, as commissioned by the Council, so that the Council could analyse the PRS on a fully informed basis and challenge where necessary the accuracy of the likely impact occurring on the town centre.

55. One of the tests that should be undertaken in Impact Assessments is to establish the state of existing centres and the nature of current shopping patterns. As part of the PRS, the applicant carried out a health check of Luton town centre, which identified it as being successful with high levels of vitality and viability, with a strong and consistent demand for retail floorspace. Accordingly it is described as being in good health that continues to perform as a competitive town centre with a comprehensive retail offer. In contrast, the WYG appraisal report carried out its own Health Check Update (2014), which identifies that the centre has experienced a sharp incline in vacant floorspace and is increasingly reliant on service functions. It further adds that, taken as a whole the centre would benefit from an injection of investment into both the convenience and comparison goods sector. Specifically, WYG‟s Health Check identifies that:

 the Town Centre is experiencing vacancy rates significantly above the national average;  those vacancy rates are worsening despite a general reduction across the country; and,  that the functioning of the small number of small foodstores in Luton Town Centre is considered fundamental to generating footfall throughout the centre, providing significant spin-off benefit for retailers throughout the Centre, and The Mall in particular.

56. In respect of this particular point the applicant‟s PRS suggests that the proposed development at the application site will “predominantly serve as a main food shopping destination” which will perform a differing function to convenience stores based in the town centre. In assessing developments for “like-affects-like”, and on the basis of there being no major foodstores in the town centre the PRS indicates that the development is not expected to have a significant impact. However, referring to the Tesco Metro that is present in the Mall, WYG‟s appraisal argues that this store plays a more significant main food function than it does a top-up function and as a result it disagrees with the applicant‟s PRS that Luton‟s town centre based stores perform a wholly different function to the application proposals. Accordingly it believes that the proposed trade diversion from the Tesco Metro store is likely to have been under-stated in the applicant‟s assessment.

57. In terms of the general quality of the Impact Assessment submitted by the applicant, question marks have been raised by both WYG, in its appraisal of the PRS and also in the form of two representations received from GVA (acting on behalf of British Land) and by Indigo, a private planning consultancy. Those areas of the PRS brought into question relate to the following:

 The assessment year of impact being 2022 is not in line with national planning policy advice (NPPG guidance prescribes a 5-year assessment). A more appropriate year of impact would be the design year of 2016 (WYG suggestion) or 2017 (Indigo suggestion)

 Allowance of 10% inflow of trade beyond the study area. Despite justifications in the PRS as to why this figure is used, it is considered to be overstated by both WYG and Indigo in their respective responses, with WYG suggesting that the store is more likely to attract around 5% inflow.

 The turnover figures included in the PRS are significantly above the turnover figures included in WYG‟s Retail Study Refresh 2012 despite only a year passing in between studies. Accordingly in their assessment, WYG indicates that it seems likely that the PRS over- estimates the turnover of retailers in Luton Town Centre.

 Significant questions are raised relating to Trade Diversion included in the PRS. Both WYG and Indigo consider the methodology used as having serious flaws. An example that has been cited relates to the assessment assuming that a trade diversion of £6.45m will result from the Asda store at Wigmore, whilst just £4.16m will divert from the Sainsbury‟s at Bury Park. The concern is that whilst Asda is marginally bigger, Sainsbury‟s is only a 2 minute drive away (1.4 miles). Significantly Asda is an 11 minute drive away (4.3 miles) and on the opposite side of town. WYG considers this to be highly unlikely whilst Indigo, in their response go as far as to suggest that the figures have deliberately underestimated the impact on Sainsbury‟s (Bury Park) in order to demonstrate a minimal impact on the Bury Park District Centre. It is noted that that there is no trade diversion attributed to the Lidl in Bury Park but other discount retailers have been considered in Marsh Road District Centre and in Dunstable, which are further away.

 Indigo has indicated in their representation that the effect of the higher turnover figures of the PRS (as mentioned above) is relevant to the consideration of impact. The PRS concludes that the impacts on all relevant centres will not be significantly adverse. However, if the trade diversions are considered in light of the Retail Study Refresh (2012) turnover estimates, then the impacts would be significantly higher. Indigo quantifies this by identifying that, according to the Refresh (2012) the Bury Park District Centre has a convenience turnover that is significantly lower than its benchmark, meaning that stores are considerably under-trading at around 60%. They go on to state that a further £4.16m from these stores would leave them trading at only 50% of company average levels and this level of impact on stores which are already underperforming is likely to have a significant adverse impact. The same consideration is applied to the Town Centre where the diversion of trade would result in a potential impact of 14%, which is considerably higher than the 8.7% predicted in the PRS. In their assessment WYG has also questioned the higher turnover figures used and shares the view that the development will have significant adverse effects.

 The PRS has not taken into consideration the cumulative impact of convenience goods commitments. Three sites have been identified by WYG, whose impact it feels should have been considered together with the application proposals. Those schemes are:

. Napier Park (resolution to approve subject to completion of S106 Agreement (ref: 13/00280/OUT)) – foodstore with net sales area of 2,555sq.metres . PC World, Unit 1 Madford Retail Park (allowed on appeal (ref: 09/01446/VARCON)) – foodstore with net sales area of 1,580sq.metres . North (approved under Central Beds ref: CB/12/03613/OUT) – foodstores of net retail sales area of 3,900sq.metres

58. Following the consistent concerns raised by Indigo, in its representation, and by WYG in its appraisal of the development, the retail impact assessment contained in the applicant‟s PRS is considered to be flawed, with the inputs used by the applicant being likely to distort the projected impact. In light of these concerns WYG considered a number of amendments to the impact assessment in order to test what they consider to be a more realistic assessment of impact. The outcome of that exercise indicates that the impacts of the proposed development would be significantly adverse.

59. Further to this WYG advise that “...the application proposals will have a significantly prejudicial impact on planned public and private investment at both the Northern Gateway and at Power Court. The proposals would be likely to prejudice any investment by a foodstore operator on the allocated site for a Town Centre extension by virtue of both their diversion of trade away from the centre (thereby lessening its vitality and viability) and, in conjunction with existing commitments, absorb all of the identified capacity for new convenience goods floorspace in Luton over the Plan period. The 2012 Refresh suggested that there was capacity for approximately 5,204 sq m net of new convenience floorspace by 2017. This is substantially consumed already by the out-of-centre Napier Park and Madford Retail Park commitments (4,135 sq m net). The addition of a further 3,989 sq m net of convenience floorspace would push the cumulative out-of-centre total to 8,124 sq m net, thereby significantly exceeding the forecast levels of new convenience goods floorspace in the Borough to 2017 (and indeed, 2021). As a result, we consider that any willingness by foodstore operators to invest in the Council‟s allocated Town Centre sites at Northern Gateway and Power Court are likely to be severely prejudiced.”

60. In connection with the foregoing paragraph, concern has been expressed by British Land (part-owners of Power Court) in a representation made by GVA, acting on their behalf. The comments raised in that representation would appear to support the view that has been taken by WYG in their assessment, and of particular interest are the following concluding comments...”On the basis that the absence of a foodstore (at Power Court) will almost certainly render the redevelopment of the Power Court site unviable, the proposed development at Dallow Road poses a significant threat to planned investment in the town centre”.

61. The PRS makes reference to the Government‟s “Planning for Growth” publication and in keeping with the thrust of that publication the local planning authority seeks to facilitate development where appropriate, “except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national planning policy.” With reference to the application proposals, the Council has, in WYG, commissioned a planning consultant with a high level of experience in Luton‟s Retail sector, and after carrying out an appraisal of the submitted PRS, together with a re- assessment of the impact assessment contained therein, it has concluded that there exist two sequentially preferable sites higher up the retail hierarchy, which are considered suitable, viable and available. Furthermore it considers that the proposed development is forecast to result in an impact of between 18-26% on the convenience goods sector of the town centre, which will be significantly adverse in light of the vitality and viability of the centre. It is also advises that were the application proposals to come forward, it is likely to unacceptably prejudice investment in the town centre. For those reasons, the proposed development would fail to comply with the objectives set out in the NPPF, most importantly (but not exclusive to) paragraphs 23 and 27.

Other Impacts

62. The Economic Statement accompanying the application identifies that allowing Morrisons to co-inhabit the building will mean that B&Q can downsize its operation to a „right-size‟ store, which will mean that it can retain its presence in the town. It goes on to state that the retention of B&Q within Luton is a very strong material consideration as it plays a very important role in the provision of DIY services of the town. Notwithstanding that it may be unsustainable to operate from its Dallow Road base however, in the event that this application were to be refused and it had to leave its Dallow Road site, it would still maintain its presence in the town by virtue of its other existing store at Gipsy Lane Retail Park, which has not been referenced in the Economic Statement. This store occupies a smaller more convenient-sized unit and on appearances it would seem to operate relatively successfully.

63. One consideration before the Council is that the presence of the foodstore within the building will result in an improved job offer from the site. Despite being downsized it is envisaged that the retained B&Q unit would maintain its existing workforce of approximately 115 full and part-time staff numbers. The new foodstore element would result in the creation of approximately 300 full and part-time positions. The Economic Statement also explains that Morrisons is the largest provider of apprenticeships in the UK, and it offers in-house training for both skilled positions and managerial roles. This is a consideration as those jobs that it will create will also have a clear progression path should the employee wish to take it.

64. Whilst this is a positive point this also has to be balanced against the impact on the planned investment within the town centre that would be affected should this application be successful, which includes the impact on the generation of local jobs that would go with it.

Highway Implications

65. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF advises that development that generates a significant amount of movement should be supported by either a Transport Statement or a Transport Assessment and that planning decisions should take account of the opportunities for sustainable transport modes to be utilised, the creation of safe and suitable access and opportunities for improvements to be undertaken to cost effectively limit the impact of development. The same paragraph goes on to state that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. As discussed in the policy section the principles of Policy T3 are in keeping with the thrust of this national policy guidance.

66. The Hatters Way relief road together with the Chaul End Lane/Dallow Road roundabout junction are notoriously busy throughout most of the day as a result of its links to the town centre and to junction 11 of the M1. Furthermore there are a number of uses present in the vicinity that attract a lot of vehicle movements including the Madford/Chaul End and Hatters Way retail parks (which are predominantly occupied by bulky-goods retailers), commercial-based uses, the Cosgrove Way Industrial Area and Downside Primary School. On the basis of discussions that have taken place between the applicant and the local highway authority it is fair to assume that the proposed change of use of part of the building to provide a large-format foodstore will result in increased trips to the area (both pedestrian and vehicular) and thus the impact on an already busy local highway network is critical.

67. The Local Highway Authority has been in long-time discussions with the applicant‟s traffic consultants in order to get to a mutually agreeable position on the potential of the development on the surrounding highway network. As originally submitted, the Transport Statement did not provide any assessment of the weekday traffic generation and so further traffic surveys and modelling of the nearby roundabout were requested to be carried out. The surveys and modelling were duly carried out and updated information provided to the Highways Authority but the data provided appeared to generate inaccurate results. Accordingly the consultation response received identifies that the assessment carried out by the applicant has raised serious concerns regarding the relevance of the trip rates used in the transport statement and, therefore, the modelling results together with the resulting impact on the junctions and wider network.

68. The response therefore concludes that in its present form there is insufficient information that provides evidence that the development would have an acceptable impact on the surrounding highway network. Furthermore, serious concerns have been raised that the forecast trips used in the evidence submitted are underestimated, which would benefit the application submission, but would not allow an accurate assessment of impact. In light of the objection that has been raised, and without adequate information to the contrary, the increased traffic flows as a result of the development will have the potential to exacerbate road congestion throughout the day, which will result in an unacceptable impact occurring on the local highway network.

Parking

69. The proposals will involve a reconfiguration of the existing car park which will result in a slight reduction on the existing provision from 495 to 464 spaces. In addition to providing space for 12 trolley shelters the spaces will be allocated as follows:

 412 standard spaces  26 Disabled spaces  26 Parent and Toddler spaces  4 trade spaces  10 motorcycle bays  60 cycles spaces

70. The car park will be shared between the two proposed stores. The Local Plan provides guidance on maximum parking standards to be applied to developments and using this as a basis for determining the development it would see parking levels set at 285 spaces for the proposed Morrisons Store and 177 spaces for the retained B&Q store. This would total 462 spaces as a maximum provision, which would be exceeded in the proposal by 2 spaces. In its response the Local Highways Authority hasn‟t referred to parking levels being a concern specifically but this is linked to the concerns raised around the impact of the development on the highways. Without knowing the potential trip generation, they are not in a position to confirm acceptance of the parking levels being put forward at this stage. In saying that, it is worth noting that the provision would exceed the parking provided at both Sainsbury Stores (Bury Park (circa 350) and Quantock Rise (circa 360)) but would fall short of Asda‟s provision (Wigmore Lane (526)).

71. The site is located in close proximity to local bus networks and is within walking distance to nearby residential areas to both the north (via footpath under Hatters Way) and to the south. To further encourage sustainable travel patterns, up to 60 cycle parking spaces will be provided on site.

Street Scene Impact

72. The environment surrounding the application site is typically commercial in nature. The sub-division of the premises will result in a need to create a new entrance lobby in the eastern element (Morrison‟s) but the plans demonstrate that this will be in keeping with the existing building and the general character of the immediate area. The function of the foodstore element is such that it would require associated warehousing and it is proposed that the existing materials storage area to the east of the building will be utilised for this purpose. This will entail the removal of an existing canopy that covers the area and replacing it with an extension, to be built in keeping with the appearance of the existing building. The installation of mezzanine floors will not have any impact on the appearance of the building.

73. The alterations to the building will have no impact on the existing street scene.

Impact on Adjoining Occupiers

74. As a result of the site‟s commercial surroundings, the subdivision is not going to have a physical impact on any nearby residential properties. In respect of that, the vast majority of the representations that have been received from neighbouring residents are in favour of a foodstore being integrated into the building. This opinion also appears to have been reflected in the Community Consultation carried out by the applicant‟s at pre-application stage, which was attended by approximately 120 local people.

75. The commercial nature of the area also suggests that there will be little detriment occurring on neighbouring businesses. One representation received is from the undeveloped area of land adjacent to the site to the east. This site has an extant planning permission for the erection of an A1 Retail (restricted) warehouse of 2,973sq.metres and a B1/B2 unit of 465sq.metres. The concerns raised relate to impact of the sub-division (and inclusion of a foodstore) on the surrounding highway network and on the existing parking capacity on the site, in a sense that if the site was built out, would the demand for parking be a problem and potentially overspill into the neighbouring site. The impacts on the highway network and on parking are addressed elsewhere in the report.

Design

76. All new areas of development will be in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing building. Design is not an area for concern.

CONCLUSIONS

77. The proposed development would have some positive impacts on the town in that it would assist to sustain the long-term operations of B&Q at the site and it would also result in the generation of a significant number of local jobs.

78. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the assessment of the applicant‟s Planning and Retail Statement that has been carried out by White Young Green (as commissioned by the Council) has identified that:

 there exists two sequentially preferable sites in either centre or edge of centre locations (Power Court and Bute Street Surface Car Park);  there will be a significantly adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the Town Centre  the proposals would unacceptably prejudice investment in the town centre.

79. In addition there are unresolved issues connected to the anticipated impact on the surrounding highway network which has led to a technical objection being received from the Local Highway Authority and in line with advice of paragraph 32 of the NPPF the application, this forms a reason for refusal.

80. On the basis of the assessment contained in the foregoing report the application is considered to be contrary to the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and to the aims and objectives as set out in the Luton Local Plan. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused.

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972, SECTION 100D

81. Luton Local Plan 2001–2011

82. National Planning Policy Framework

83. National Planning Policy Guidance

84. White Young Green Retail Study Refresh (2012)

85. White Young Green Appraisal of Retail Planning Issues (B&Q Site, Laporte Retail Park, Dallow Road) (2014)