_APPROVAL_

Document Sample
_APPROVAL_ Powered By Docstoc
					PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 23/08/2004


APPLIC REF NO 2004/628/WT                            DATE RECEIVED 10/06/2004

APPLICANT              LIDL UK GMBH

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               ALLOTMENT LAND BETWEEN 185 & 203 CHESTERFIELD
               ROAD SOUTH MANSFIELD NG197AR

                     CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE STOREY LIDL
                     NEIGHBOURHOOD FOODSTORE AND CAR PARKING
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RECOMMENDATION:                   REFUSE PERMISSION

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND APPLICATION SITE

This application is in respect of the erection of a 1797 square metre (gross)
discount foodstore on allotment land fronting Chesterfield Road South. The
development would comprise of a building with associated servicing and
parking for 101 vehicles and would utilise a small part of a larger area of
allotment land.

The retail unit would be single storey in height and would be constructed with
rendered walls incorporating a brick plinth and a tiled roof. The unit would be
sited at the rear of properties on Bould Street. A single vehicular access
would be provided onto Chesterfield Road South, providing access to
customer parking at the front and side of the store and to the service area at
the rear of the site. The ground levels slope upwards into the site and a 3
metre high retaining wall is proposed along the rear boundary of the site.

The site abuts residential properties on Bould Street, Albion Street and on the
opposite side of Chesterfield Road South and retail units fronting Chesterfield
Road South. The allotments are currently dis-used and overgrown.

In support of the proposal the applicant states the following;

*       Lidl provides small neighbourhood stores close to the residential areas
        that they serve;
*       Lidl do not have a butchers counter, deli counter, dry cleaning, financial
        services, lottery, newspapers/magazines, a bakery, fishmongers, post
        office counter, café, stationery/greeting cards, pharmacy, photo
        processing;
*       occasional goods include electrical goods, flowers, hardware, clothing,
        furniture, books and DVD’s/CD’s;
*       one delivery per day;
*       15-20 shop floor staff are employed locally;
*       hours of opening are typically 9am-8pm Monday-Friday, 8.30am-
        6.00pm Saturday and 10am-4.00pm Sunday;
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 23/08/2004


*      a local foodstore provision is not currently available in the area and
       there will be no negative impact on local shops, indeed local shops can
       benefit from additional trade.

A retail assessment has been submitted in support of the proposal which
concludes that the proposal is generally consistent with Government Policy
advice in PPG6 and draft PPS6 and that it can be demonstrated that there is
an identifiable quantiatitive and qualitative need for the proposed development
within the defined catchment area. It also states that the proposal is in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the adopted Mansfield District
Local Plan.

A Traffic Impact Assessment has also been submitted which concludes that a
priority junction is required to access the site, that the site access would
operate satisfactorily within capacity, with minimal queues and delays, for the
foreseeable future and that overall there are no sustainable highway or traffic
reasons to object to the proposal.

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

No planning history.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

Your officers have taken the view that the following Articles listed below are
relevant in the processing of all applications and enforcement matters which
appear on this agenda.        They have therefore reflected this in their
recommendations. Members will need to address these issues in coming to
their decision. The Council’s Solicitor & Monitoring Officer is happy to advise
on the application of the Human Rights Act to any particular application at the
meeting.

Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 18

Article 1     1st Protocol

OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED

Throughout this report observations received in respect of each application
are presented in summary form. The full letters are available for inspection
both prior to and at the meeting.

Anyone wishing to make further comments in relation to the application must
ensure these are received by the Council by 12 noon on the last working day
before the date of the Committee.

1)     Building Control Manager

No objections subject to adequate access provison for the disabled.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 23/08/2004


2)     Risk and Community Protection Manager

Construction work should be limited to 8am-6pm Mondays-Fridays and 8am-
1pm Saturdays only. Details of the location and specification of all permanent
plant should be submitted for consideration. Barriers should be installed to
close the car park when the store is closed. Lighting should be designed to
avoid nuisance to neighbouring residential properties. The store hours of
opening should be limited to 8am-8pm Monday-Saturday only. Deliveries
should be between 7am and 9pm.

3)     Severn Trent Water

No objection subject a condition being imposed regarding surafce water
disposal.

4)     Newark & Sherwood District Council

No objection probvided that MDC are satisfied that the development complies
with the relevant Development Plan Policies.

5)     Bassetlaw District Council

No comments.

6)    District of Bolsover
No objections providing that the proposal complies with the relevant policies in
the adopted Mansfield District Local Plan.

7)     Local Planning

The application site comprises part of the now redundant Bould St allotments
which are covered by policy LT6 of the adopted Mansfield Local Plan.
The site lies approx 1200metres from the primary frontage area of the town
centre(West Gate) and can be classed as an out-of-centre retail proposal. I
have a number of concerns with regard to this proposal, in particular as to its
conformity to national, regional, county and local plan policies. I will deal with
each of these in turn;

National Planning Policy
The proposal does not accord with government guidance contained in PPG6
(Town Centres and Retail Developments). It fails to accord with the
governments objectives of sustaining and enhancing existing centres and is
not in accord with the retail development strategy set out in the development
plan (structure and local plans). It also fails the key tests set out in PPG6 for
developments outside existing centres namely Impact on Development Plan
strategy, Impact and Vitality of existing centres and Impact on Travel and Car
Use.
The proposal is also contrary to PPG13 which seeks to reduce reliance on the
car and the need to travel.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 23/08/2004


Regional Planning Guidance
The proposal is contrary to policy 17 of adopted RPG8 (Regional Planning
Guidance for the East Midlands to 2021) which seeks to sustain the role of
centres. The policy states;

       “…New retail and leisure facilities ,where a demonstrable need exists,
be located in city or town centres as a first preference and have regard to
policies 1 & 2 and PPG6…”

Structure Plan Policies
The proposal is also contrary to policies 6/2 (Development of major out-of –
centre retail facilities) and 6/4 (Local Shopping Need in Urban Areas) of the
adopted Notts Structure Plan Review. In relation to policy 6/2 the proposal
fails to meet criteria a), c), e) and f). With regard to policy 6/4 the proposal is
not meeting a local shopping need in a small centre.

Local Plan Policies
The proposal is contrary to a number of local plan policies namely;

Policy R6- Retail Development outside existing centres – the proposal fails to
satisfy criteria 1,2,3 and 5 of this policy
Policy R7- Retail Development criteria – the proposal fails to meet criteria 1,2
and 3 of this policy
Policy M16- Development Requirements – the proposal fails to meet criteria 2
of this policy

In addition to the above points I would also question the “need” for this facility
given the proximity of Mansfield town centre,Woodhouse district centre and a
number of local shops in the vicinity of this proposal. Mansfield as a whole is
well catered for in terms of convenience shopping and the applicant would
need to prove there is a genuine need for this type of facility.
Even if “need” can be proven, sequentially there are better sites that this
facility could be accomodated on such as;
    1. Mansfield town centre- either existing vacant units(Clumber St/West
         Gate etc),St Peters Retail Park,Town Hall devt,Stockwell Gate etc…
    2. Woodhouse district centre- again either existing vacant units or
         Portland St site

   I would also have concerns about the traffic safety implications of this
   development which does not cater for right-turners either into or out of the
   site. This could result in U turn movements on Chesterfield Road. There is
   also a considerable amount of on-street parking in the vicinity of the
   entrance to the site.The views of the highway authority should be sought
   on these issues.
   The 101 space car park would seem to indicate that this proposal is
   intended to cater for a much wider catchment area than the immediate
   neighbourhood.

   Comments on Retail Statement submitted
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 23/08/2004


     There is nothing in the retail statement that would make me change the
     comments submitted above. However I would make the following
     comments which you may wish to consider for inclusion in your report;
     Para 2.6- If Lidl customers use other facilities(and the Lidl store is not a
     one-stop shopping experience) surely it would be more sustainable to
     locate them in district/local shopping centres.
     Paras 2.8/2.9- The designated neighbourhood parade R4C which adjoins
     the site was due to be deleted in the now aborted draft replacement local
     plan.The proposal is too large to integrate with a neighbourhood parade
     anyway.
     Para 4.4- If the catchment area for the store is so limited why have a 101
     space car park?
     Para 4.7- The population estimates quoted seem in conflict with trends
     identified by ONCS for the district i.e a fall in population
     Section 5 Impact- I do not feel that the case has been adequately proven
     that there will be no adverse impact on Mansfield and Woodhouse centres.
     Section 6 Sequential Test- This has not been analysed properly.The
     philosophy seems to imply that there would be 4/5 Lidls spread around the
     Mansfield area each having its own distinct trading area. They have not
     considered vacant units in the town centre (e.g Clumber St & West Gate)
     or the Town Hall block. St Peters retail park high rental levels are not a
     valid planning consideration.

     Notwithstanding that the site is located within the main urban area and is
     in a sustainable location, well served by public transport, the application is
     clearly contrary to national, regional, county and local plan policies. For
     these reasons the application should be REFUSED.

8)      Ashfield District Council

No observations

9)      Nottinghamshire County Council (Policy)

The proposal is on designated allotment land adjacent to a local centre as
defined in the Local Plan. The sequential approach as set out in PPG6 does
not include edge-of-centre where the centre is not a defined Town Centre and
therefore I concur with the applicant’s agents in assuming that the site is out-
of-centre.
The applicants have considered need and the relevant issue, if a need is
found, is whether there are suitable and available sites within the sequential
approach where the need has been demonstrated. This is a matter for the
District Council to determine. The applicants quantatitive assessment of need
doesn’;t take into account convenience goods trade taken by stores located
beyond the 5 minute drive time, but whose primary catchment area would
cover parts of the porposed Lidl; catchment area eg Morrisons. As such, it is
doubtful whether there is the scale of “surplus” quoted by the applicants.
Account also needs to be taken of relevant retail proposals in and around the
Town Centre and elsewhere in the District. I note the applicants comments,
but I do not have the information to verify their information. From what they
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 23/08/2004


say about the High Street/Rose Lane site, this indicates that an in-centre site
is acceptable to the applicants.
In terms of impact on vitaility and viability of nearby centres, I would agree
that even trading at 10% above the levels proposed, the Lidl store would not
adversley impact upon the centres of Mansfield and Mansfield Woodhouse.
Accordingly, I would not raise an objection on the grounds of impact.
In conclusion, the strategic planning issues relate to the sequential approach
and whether there is a proven qualitative need for the proposal. These are
matters for the District Council to consider. If it is considered that there is a
need for and that there are no alternative and suitable sites, no strategic
planning objections would be raised. However, if these factors do not hold,
the application conflicts with national planning guidance and with structure
plan policy 6/2 (JSP 7/2).

10)    Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways)

The servicing of the site is satisfactory with large vehicles able to manouevre
within the site in order to enter and leave in a forward gear. Parking provision
is slightly higher than the 92 spaces advocated in PPG13, however 101
spaces is acceptable. The access is adequate in width and radius, as is
visibility in both directions. The junction with Chesterfield Road South will be
an all movement junction with a back to back right turn facility with Linden
Street. Having studied the Traffic Assessment, in principle I am satisfied that
the proposed junction can handle the extra traffic generated.
The site satisfies the minimunm criteria of site area suggested in the Interim
Transport Planning Statement on Integrated Transport Measures and
Developer Contributions (2001) and as such a contribution should be sought
from the applicant.

11)    Gedling Borough Council

No observations.

12)    Members of the Public

Two petitions, with a combined total of 883 signatures, and 7 letters of
objection from the occupiers of No.s 142, 144, 178, 185, 203-205 & 207
Chesterfield Road South and the owner of No. 3 Bould Street have been
received and a summary of their concerns are given below;

*      the Local Plan indicates this site being reserved for leisure purposes;
*      the supermarket will threaten the livelihood of the owner of the adjacent
       shop;
*      existing service providers already provide for the local and non-local
       market;
*      if approved, Traffic Restriction Orders may be imposed outside
       adjacent property and thereby affect customer parking to existing
       shops;
*      overbearing visual impact and loss of daylight;
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 23/08/2004


*      additional noise and disturbance, particularly due to night time
       deliveries;
*      the car park will attract joy riders etc.;
*      increased traffic movements into and across Chesterfield Road South
       leading to disruption and accidents;
*      how will surface water be accommodated without overloading existing
       facilities;
*      traffic congestion, particularly when the nearby school opens/closes;
*      a Tesco store is to be built nearby and therefore a further store is not
       necessary;
*      Lidl is not a name of distinction and Mansfield should be more mindful
       of quality when considering retailers;
*      devaluation of property;
*      loss of sunlight.

13)    Environment Agency

No objections subject to conditions regarding surface water disposal.

ISSUES

The main issues are the relationship of the development with the Mansfield
District Local Plan, the Nottinghamshire Structure Plan, Planning Policy
Guidance 6 - Town Centre and Retail Developments (PPG6) and Ministerial
Statements, Planning Policy Guidance 13 - Transport (PPG13), the loss of
allotments, the impact of development on highway safety and the impact upon
the residential amenity of the occupiers of dwellings in the vicinity of the site.

Sequential Approach
The site is not within or adjacent to any defined town or district centre and
therefore the proposals must be considered against policy R6 of the Local
Plan and policy 6/2 of the Structure Plan and with guidance in PPG6 and
Ministerial Statements.

Government guidance in PPG6 emphasises the importance of the plan led
approach to promoting development in town centres. It adopts a sequential
approach to selecting sites for retail development starting with sites in the
town centres or other centres, then edge of centre and only then should other
sites be considered and only these which are well served by a choice of
means of transport. The sequential approach aims to reduce/minimize
unnecessary travel and the use of the car and is re-emphasised in PPG13.

The onus is on the applicants to demonstrate that they have adopted the
sequential approach to site selection, showing that all town centre and district
centres have been thoroughly assessed before out of town sites, such as that
currently proposed, are considered.

The applicant has considered potential development sites and these have all
been discounted by the applicant for various reasons. For example, the
Stockwell Gate site is currently being considered for possible comparison
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 23/08/2004


retail and town centre uses, however this process is likely to be a long term
project and is not immediately available; the St John Street site is not
immediately available and has site assembly and multiple ownership
obstacles; Mansfield Woodhouse (Rose Lane) was previously owned by Lidl
but now has the benefit of a residential permission and is no longer available,
St Peter’s Retail Park has 3 vacant units, however they are marketed at such
a rental level that it would be financially unviable for Lidl to operate from them.

It is considered that no adequate justification has been given why the vacant
premises on St Peter’s Retail Park cannot be used. The applicant argues that
rental levels are too high, however no evidence has been submitted in support
of this statement and in any event, it is considered that this factor should not
be given significant weight. A further site that is identified in the Local Plan for
retail purposes is the Portland Street site in Mansfield Woodhouse. The
applicant has not made any reference to this site in the supporting statement.
Accordingly, it is considered that the applicant has not sufficiently proven their
case in relation to the sequential approach.

Impact on the Development Plan Strategy and the Viability and Vitality of the
Town Centre
The Local Plan states that a key Council objective is to achieve sustainable
retail development sites to take advantage of existing centres, to serve
concentrations of people and locations to minimize the need to travel large
distances. It also states that the District’s shopping centres have benefited
from considerable public and private investment to improve the quality of
services and facilities offered and to improve the environment and to
consolidate their functions.

Whilst there may be a qualitative need for a foodstore offering discounted
items for bulk purchase, this need would be best served either within the town
or district centres. Discounted food shopping would most probably be carried
out as part of a weekly (or less frequent) bulk-shopping trip and would attract
customers living well outside the walk-in shopping range. The proposal,
selling a limited range of goods, would not adequately serve the full spectrum
of local shopping needs and in effect the approval of this proposal would
effectively be a bypassing of the development plan process.

In general terms, the proposed supermarket is unlikely to operate as a local
shop selling convenience goods to the immediately adjoining area. In
applying the various criteria within policy R6, the applicant has not adequately
demonstrated that there are no other suitable locations available in defined or
edge of defined centres (criteria 1). The site is outside the defined retail
hierarchy and so is contrary to the suite of retail policies contained in the local
plan. If permitted, the proposal could set a precedent which would prejudice
investment in existing centres and would have a cumulative impact on their
vitality and viability (criteria 2). If approved, the proposal would prejudice
investment in existing centres such as Mansfield Woodhouse (criteria 3).
Whilst the site may be on a busy bus route, it is unlikely that bus passengers
will break their journey to visit the store (criteria 4). The site is outside any
defined centre and does not give the opportunity for any linked trips and thus
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 23/08/2004


does not reduce the need to travel, especially by car. The proposed 101
parking spaces further illustrates that the applicants expect that a significant
amount of trade would be car borne (criteria 5).

Traffic impact & PPG13
With regard to traffic impact, the conclusions of the Transportation
Assessment, as submitted by the applicant, are accepted by the Highway
Authority and on this basis, I consider that an objection on highway grounds
cannot be sustained.

However, PPG13 requires that proposals should reduce the need to travel,
especially by car, and that such should not give rise to unacceptable traffic
conditions. Whilst the applicant claims that the proposed parking provision is
adequate, an admission is also made that even at seasonal peaks, a
maximum of only 76 to 82 spaces are required. Accordingly, the proposed
101 spaces is considered to be excessive and will only encourage greater car
use. The proposed substantial car parking area is clear evidence that there is
expected to be a significant amount of vehicular attraction. This would clearly
be contrary to policy in terms of reducing the need to travel, especially by car.
Furthermore, as an isolated out-of-centre supermarket, there is no opportunity
for any linked trips to be generated. Shoppers will be unable to combine
several activities in one visit and the car park facility is unlikely to be used for
purchases elsewhere.

The proposed total amount of car parking spaces provided would be
marginally above PPG13 requirements and it is considered this proposed
level of parking provision is excessive for a supermarket. PPG 13 parking
standards are maximum levels of parking and local planning authorities can
adopt more rigorous standards, where appropriate. In this instance, it is
considered that the proposed parking provision cannot be justified against the
PPG13 objectives of reducing the need for car journeys and the promotion of
more sustainable transport choices. Moreover, PPG13 states that “it should
not be assumed that where a proposal accords with the relevant maximum
parking standard it is automatically acceptable in terms of achieving the
objectives of this guidance”.

In terms of the Highway Authority’s comments regarding a developer
contribution towards integrated transport measures, I would advise that this
Statement has not been adopted by Mansfield District Council.

Loss of allotment land
The proposals would involve the loss of part of a larger allotment area,
however the allotments are dis-used and policy LT6 of the Local Plan states
that planning permission will be granted for developments which would lead to
the loss of allotment gardens if it can be clearly demonstrated that allotment
gardens are no longer required. In this instance, a simple visual inspection of
the site confirms the lack of usage of these allotments and I consider that an
objection on the basis of the loss of a small part of a larger allotment site
cannot be sustained.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 23/08/2004


Impact upon the residential amenity
No concerns have been raised by the Principal Environmental Health Officer,
subject to restrictions on the hours of opening and deliveries, and on this
basis I consider that an objection on this ground is also unsustainable.

Summary
It is therefore considered, in the absence of a reasoned and comprehensive
justification for the proposed the foodstore, that planning permission be
refused for the reasons set out below.

RECOMMENDED REASONS FOR REFUSAL

(1) Reason: The proposal would be contrary to policy R6 of the Mansfield
District Local Plan (1998) which states:

PLANNING PERMISSION WILL NOT BE GRANTED FOR RETAIL
DEVELOPMENTS     (OTHER    THAN   LOCAL   SHOPS   SELLING
CONVENIENCE GOODS TO THE IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING AREA)
OUTSIDE EXISTING CENTRES, AS DEFINED ON THE PROPOSALS MAP
UNLESS IT CAN BE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY WOULD
MEET ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA:-

1) THERE ARE NO OTHER SUITABLE LOCATIONS AVAILABLE IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE WITHIN A DEFINED CENTRE OR IN THE SECOND
INSTANCE AT THE EDGE OF A DEFINED CENTRE;

2)    THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT DIRECTLY, OR WHEN
CONSIDERED WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, SERIOUSLY AFFECT THE
VITALITY AND VIABILITY OF ANY NEARBY CENTRE;

3) THE DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT PREJUDICE FUTURE INVESTMENT IN
EXISTING CENTRES OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCAL PLAN
POLICIES;

4)   THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE WELL SERVED BY PUBLIC
TRANSPORT SERVICES AND BE EASILY AND SAFELY ACCESSIBLE
FOR PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS;

5)  THE DEVELOPMENT WILL REDUCE THE NEED TO TRAVEL
ESPECIALLY BY CAR;

6) THE DEVELOPMENT WILL INTEGRATE WITH SURROUNDING LAND
USES AND MAKE PROVISION FOR EFFECTIVE PEDESTRIAN
MOVEMENTS;

WHERE NECESSARY THE COUNCIL WILL IMPOSE CONDITIONS TO
CONTROL THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF RETAIL FLOORSPACE, THE
MINIMUM SIZE OF UNIT AND THE TYPE OF GOODS SOLD IN ORDER TO
SAFEGUARD THE VITALITY AND VIABILITY OF EXISTING CENTRES.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 23/08/2004


The application and supporting Retail Statement do not adequately
demonstrate that there are no other suitable locations available within defined
centres or at the edge of centres, that the development would not affect the
vitality and viability of nearby centres, that it would be well served by public
transport or reduce the need to travel and that it will not prejudice future
investment in existing centres. Furthermore, the proposed development
would not reduce the need to travel by car. The proposal would therefore be
contrary to criteria 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Policy R6.

(2) Reason: The proposal would be contrary to policy R7 of the Mansfield
District Local Plan (1997) which states that;

PLANNING  PERMISSION WILL   BE  GRANTED  FOR    RETAIL
DEVELOPMENTS PROVIDED THAT THEY WOULD MEET ALL OF THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA:-

1) BE OF A SCALE WHICH IS CONSITANT WITH THE SIZE OF THE
DEFINED CENTRE IN WHICH IT IS SITUATED OR TO WHICH IT
RELATES;

2) INTEGRATE WITH THE EXISTING PATTERN OF SETTLEMENT AND
SURROUNDING LAND USES;

3) NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE
SURROUNDING AREA;

4) NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE AMENITIES OF NEARBY OCCUPIERS;

5) HAVE A HIGH STANDARD OF DESIGN AND LAYOUT, PARTICULARLY
WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF MATERIALS AND MASSING OF
BUILDINGS;

6) INCORPORATE SITE CHARACTERISTICS/FEATURES WHICH MAKE
AN IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE TOWNSCAPE;

7) MAKE PROVISION FOR THE NEEDS OF THE DISBLED, ELDERLY AND
PERSONS WITH YOUNG CHILDEN AND INCLUDE CRIME PREVENTION
MEASURES.

The proposed foodstore would not meet criteria 1 as the site is not within a
defined centre.

(3) Reason:    The proposal would be contrary to policy 6/2 of the
Nottinghamshire Structure Plan Review (1996) which states;

PROPOSALS FOR MAJOR OUT-OF-CENTRE RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS
WILL BE PERMITTED WHERE;

A) NO SUITABLE SITES ARE AVAILABLE WITHIN NEARBY TOWN
CENTRES OR ON EDGE-OF-CENTRE SITES;
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 23/08/2004


B) THEY ARE LOCATED ON SITES WHICH ARE ACCESSIBLE BY A
CHOICE OF MEANS OF TRANSPORT;

C) THEY WOULD NOT DIRECTLY, OR WHEN CONSIDERED TOGETHER
WITH ANY OTHER SCHEMES LIKELY TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE SHORT
TERM , SERIOUSLY AFFECT THE VITALITY AND VIABILITY OF ANY
NEARBY CENTRES AS A WHOLE LISTED IN POLICY 6/1 AND
UNDERMINE THE ABILITY OF THOSE CENTRES TO SERVE THE
COMMUNITY WELL;

D) THEY WOULD HAVE GOOD ACCESS TO THE MAIN ROAD NETWORK;

E) THEIR IMPACT UPON OVERALL TRAVEL AND CAR USE IS
ACCEPTABLE; AND

F) THEY WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO UNACCEPTABLE VEHICULAR
AND/OR PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND CAR PARKING
PROVISION IS ADEQUATE.

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN THIS PLAN PERIOD FOR A NEW
REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTRE DEVELOPMENT TPO SERVE THE
COUNTY.

The application and supporting Retail Statement do not adequately
demonstrate that there are no other suitable locations available, that the site
is accessible by a means of transport, that the development would not affect
the vitality and viability of nearby centres and that its impact upon overall
travel and car use is acceptable. The proposal would therefore be contrary to
criteria (A), (B), (C) and (E) of Policy 6/2.

(4) Reason: The proposal would be contrary to Policy 7/2 of the Deposit Draft
Joint Structure Plan which states that;

PROPOSALS FOR RETAIL DEVELOPMENT (OTHER THAN THAT TO
MEET PURELY LOCAL NEEDS) AND FOR OTHER CENTRAL AREA USES
SUCH AS OFFICES AND LEISURE USES WILL BE LOCATED UNDER THE
FIOLLOWING SEQUENCE:

a) first, within the town centres as defined in Policy 7/1; then

b) on the edge of the town centres; then

c) in local centres; then

d) in out-of-centre locations that are, or can be made, readily accessible by a
choice of a means of transport.

Proposals for retail and other development in locations other than a) will only
be permitted where:

i) a need for the development has been established;
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 23/08/2004


ii) the sequential approach has been followed and there are no suitable sites
available in a higher category of the approach;

iii) the development would not harm the vitality and viability of any nearby
town centre either directly or cumulatively with any other scheme likely to be
developed in the short term;

iv) development proposed in a local centre is appropriate in nature and scale
to that centre;

v) the impact upon overall travel and car use is acceptable; and

vi) the proposals would not give rise to unacceptable vehicular and /or
pedestrian traffic conditions, and car parking provision is adequate.

The site is not within a town centre and the application and supporting Retail
Statement do not adequately demonstrate that there are no other suitable
locations available, that the development would not affect the vitality and
viability of nearby centres and that its impact upon overall travel and car use
is acceptable. The proposal would therefore be contrary to criteria ii), iii) and
v) of Policy 7/2 of the Deposit Draft Structure Plan.

(5) Reason: The proposal would be contrary to Planning Policy Guidance 6 –
Town Centres and Retail Developments and Ministerial Advice on Retail
Matters in that the application and supporting Retail Statement do not
adequately demonstrate that there are no other suitable locations available,
that the development would not affect the vitality and viability of nearby
centres and that it will not prejudice future investment in existing centres.
Furthermore, the proposed development would not support linked trips or
result in a reduction in the need to travel by car.

(6) Reason: The proposal would be contrary to Planning Policy Guidance 13 -
Transport as the development would encourage the need to travel by car to
this out-of-centre location and would not promote sustainable transport
choices. Furthermore, the Council further considers that the proposed
number of car parking spaces would not help reduce the overall dependency
on private cars, nor encourage the use of public transport, walking or cycling
to the store.
PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE 23/08/2004

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:28
posted:4/7/2010
language:English
pages:14