Officers' Reports to Development Control Committee (West) 22 November 2007

Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1. SHERINGHAM – 20070217 – Demolition of buildings, including dwellings, and erection of A1 retail foodstore with associated access, car parking and servicing and provision of footpath link to Station Road; land at Cromer Road for Tesco Stores Limited
To determine a planning application for an A1 retail foodstore and associated development and to reconsider the Council’s position in relation to the outstanding planning appeal for a similar development on the site.
Background
This application was considered by the Development Control Committee (West) on 2 November 2007, when it was resolved to refer to the Combined Committee with a recommendation of refusal by reason of 1) loss of housing, 2) highway impact, 3) amount of retail floorspace, 4) effect on local businesses.
A copy of the report to that meeting (including Appendices) is attached as Appendix 1.
Updates
Subsequent to the preparation of the report for the meeting on 2 November, the following updates have been received:-
1 letter in support from the leader of the Protesc Group:-
1. People of Sheringham and surrounding area should be entitled to shop in a supermarket or in a local shop without having to drive to another town (assuming they have the transport to do this).
2. Town is expanding and continuing to grow. Will need a reasonable sized store to cope with residents and visitors.
3. Town needs to grow for children to stay.
4. This store and other businesses should be encouraged to come to Sheringham to achieve this.
3 letters in support from local residents:-
1. Reiterating previous comments referred to in the agenda regarding need.
2. There are a limited number of people against the proposal including shop owners who have a self interest.
3. People have a right to shop where they live.
4. Should not be refused just because it is a Tesco proposal.
8 letters of objection from the public:-
1. Appeal should be determined by this latest application.
2. Will affect village shops.
3. Town not big enough to support a major supermarket.
Development Control Committee (West) 1 22 November 2007
4. Tesco have lost planning battles recently elsewhere in the U.K.
5. Superstores just benefit people with cars.
6. We did not have superstores until recently, why do we need them now.
7. Reiterating number of objections raised by others previously and contained within the report.
2 submissions have been received from a local resident (Mr Hewitt). The first it is understood was sent to all Committee Members prior to the meeting of the West Area Development Control Committee on 2 November. The second follows the resolution made at that Committee. Both of these submissions, including attachments, are attached as Appendix 2.
1 letter of objection suggesting an alternative of a 1,000sq.m store approximating to the guidelines set out in the Local Development Framework. It then specifies the supporting rationale; a copy of that letter is attached as Appendix 3.
1 further detailed letter seeking comments and raising an objection has been received from a local resident (Mr Osborne), which is attached as Appendix 4, including the enclosures referred to.
1 letter from Sheringham and District Chamber of Trade:-
1. Remain concerned about the size of the store and its likely impact. Suggest 12 – 16 businesses would be lost on a drop of turnover by a small margin of between 10% - 20% and this is backed up by the retail study.
2. When a store such as this has opened in other towns there has been a drastic effect with many shops closing.
3. Linked trips do not work, why should Sheringham be any different?
4. Will have no “claw back” the only benefit will be to the store.
5. Sheringham has always been a top up shopping town. If the store opens even top up shopping and items currently bought in the town will be purchased at the store.
6. Would affect shops and stores further afield including Morrisons and Rainbow at Cromer, Budgens in Holt and Sainsburys at North Walsham.
7. Loss of jobs overall.
8. Sheringham is currently a vibrant town with a good community spirit, this will be lost.
9. Loss of distinctive character with individual and niche shops. Will affect attractiveness to tourists and visitors.
10. Still have concerns regarding highway concerns and in particular congestion.
- feel the traffic generation figures have been under estimated.
- Chamber of Trade count on 9 July 2006 showed an increase of 50% on the Tesco figures.
- Highways have treated this problem too lightly.
- on many weekends the town is almost at grid-lock.
- claw back will be car borne shoppers.
- increased pollution and carbon emissions.
11. Makes reference to the Local Development Framework and its vision for Sheringham.
12. Changes to the road network required will affect the character of the area.
- throwing money at a highway problem will not necessarily fix it.
13. Problems outweigh the advantages. Members should refuse as before.
Comments from County Highways:-
I have reviewed the various contributions detailed in my letter of 27 July 2007, in the light of the guidance contained in Circular 05/2005. It is apparent that some of the requested contributions, or the size of them, could not be defended in an appeal
Development Control Committee (West) 2 22 November 2007
situation. Furthermore the argument of proportionality is accepted in respect of the Common Lane improvement and the Holway Road roundabout works.
In the light of the foregoing, the contribution towards the Town Centre pedestrian enhancement scheme is waived and the sums sought for Common Lane and Holway Road are reduced to £7,500 and £5,000 respectively.
Letter from applicants’ agent:-
1. Has sought views of his client on whether they would agree an element of public art and how it would be agreed and provided for. Agrees to this to be provided the same way as at Fakenham.
2. With regard to the comparison with the site and the Station car park site - points out that the Budgens proposal was at the western end of the Station car park site – there has never been any proposal for a store at the eastern end.
3. The scale and intensity to the representations to the 750sq.m suggested threshold in the Local Development Framework seem understated and might well lead to change.
4. Details of “lighting” and outstanding issues with the Community Safety Manager can be dealt with adequately by conditions, as could any other legitimate matters that might be raised about the proposed development.
5. The Council has received a large number of letters from people living well outside the area objecting to the proposal – particularly from Leicestershire. This distorts perception of public support displayed through the various telephone surveys and the two public exhibitions.
Submission from the agent regarding Tesco’s approach to sustainable development; a copy of that submission is attached at Appendix 5.
Comments from Environmental Policy Officer:-
Building Research Establishment “very good” rating should achieve the minimisation of energy resource consumption required under Policy EN6 of the Core Strategy.
Conditions suggested:-
1. A post construction assessment carried out by a licensed Business Research Establishment assessor demonstrating that the store meets the very good standard, is submitted to the District Council before the store commences trading.
2. An energy consumption statement (based on the methodology in Section 4 of the London Renewables Toolkit) is submitted to the District Council demonstrating how 10% of the store’s predicted energy demand will be met from on-site renewable sources, before the store commences trading.
3. Rainwater recycling, spray taps with self regulating flow restrictors with a maximum flow of 7l/min and 2 x 4 litre dual flush toilets and waterless urinals are installed and copies of relevant invoices are provided to the District Council before the store commences trading.
In respect of the Local Development Framework policies referred to in the report which is attached as Appendix 1, the following policies should be included for completeness as additions to those referred to on page 20 of that earlier report:-
Policy EN6 – Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN10 – Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy CT2 – Developer contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer contributions).
Policy CT3 – Provision and retention of local facilities and services (specifies criteria for new facilities and prevents loss of existing other than in exceptional circumstances).
Development Control Committee (West) 3 22 November 2007
Policy CT5 – The transport impact of new development (specifies criteria to ensure reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6 – Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council’s car parking standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
It is not considered that these policies add anything of significance to the matters discussed in the appended report.
Key Policy Issues
1. Compliance with Local Plan Policies 7 and 84, the tests contained within Planning Policy Statement 6 (relating to town centre development) and the contents of emerging policy in the Core Strategy, in particular Policy EC5.
2. The weight to be given to emerging Local Development Framework policies.
3. Compliance with Structure Plan Policy T2, Local plan Policy 147 and emerging Core Strategy Policy CT5.
Appraisal
The previous report, attached as Appendix 1, includes considerable detail in respect of the appraisal and analysis of this development and in particular in relation to compliance with existing and emerging policy and the advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 6.
Proposed Reasons for Refusal
The following section seeks to comment on the specific reasons for refusal recommended by the Development Control Committee (West) at its meeting on 2 November 2007.
1. Loss of housing
Whilst this is a material consideration for the Combined Committee to take into account in determining this application, there is currently no Development Plan policy requirement to replace or retain the residential units.
Members may recall that in 2003 an application was made to build eleven bungalows at Weston Terrace in association with the agreement to dispose of the Lockerbie flats site. That application was subsequently withdrawn and a cash settlement in lieu of providing affordable homes at Weston Terrace was agreed by the Council’s Cabinet in December 2006.
There is considered to be no basis in policy for this reason for refusal.
2. Highway impact
The District Council seeks expert advice on issues of traffic generation and highway safety from the County Council as Highway Authority. That Authority has raised no objection to the proposal on the grounds of either highway safety or impacts on the highway network under the previous application submitted in 2003 (application reference 20030991) or under the current application.
Furthermore, the District Council commissioned an independent firm of Highway Consultants to advise on whether or not they considered there to be substantive reasons for refusal on highway grounds in respect of the previous application reference 20030991. Attached as Appendix 6 is a copy of their overall conclusions and Members will note that they did not consider there were substantive reasons to refuse the proposed development on highway grounds.
Development Control Committee (West) 4 22 November 2007
Members will appreciate that the store currently proposed is of the same size as the 2003 application and moreover that the latest application provides for a right turning facility as requested by the Joint Committee in April 2006.
3. Amount of retail floorspace
Members will appreciate that Officers have been advised on the retail issues by a specialist retail planning consultant. Whilst the conclusions from the consultant’s report are attached to the original report, the consultant, in reaching those conclusions, had previously looked in more detail on each of the tests.
The detailed assessment by the retail consultant in respect of quantitative and qualitative need and the appropriateness of the scale of the development are attached as Appendix 7. It will be noted that at paragraph 6.5 he concludes that the applicants can demonstrate that the scale of retailing proposed is appropriate in this case. In his judgement the critical mass of retailing proposed is necessary to achieve significant “claw back” shoppers and spend currently leaking to other (predominantly out-of-centre) stores and centres in the District and beyond.
Also, in terms of retail assessment, the Council previously sought the advice of the County Council’s specialist retail planning officer who raised no objections to the 2003 application in terms of potential impact or the scale of the development. He has reiterated those previous views in respect of the current application.
4. Effect on local businesses
In terms of the tests within PPS6 this issue falls to be considered in terms of retail impact. The findings of the Council’s retail planning consultant in respect of retail impact are attached as Appendix 8.
In paragraphs 8.8 to 8.14 he analyses in detail the impact on trade/turnover on the vitality and viability of other centres and on Sheringham town centre in particular. In paragraph 8.14 he acknowledges the potential closure of some businesses as a result of a period of readjustment of shopping and trading patterns but advises that any adverse impact from the proposed store should be mitigated by the positive benefits arising from “claw back”, linked trips, increased footfall and spin-off spend to the town centre as a whole. The overall impact on the town centre’s vitality and viability should therefore be positive.
Conclusions on Proposed Reasons for Refusal
In the light of the above, Officers do not consider there to be any basis in policy to justify refusal on the grounds of loss of housing. In terms of the highway and retail issues raised the reasons for refusal are not supported by the evidence or expert advice received from the Council’s consultant or statutory consultees.
The conclusions of Officers remain the same as with the previous report, to which Members are referred, but as has been pointed out in representations, the Committee is entitled to reach a different conclusion from Officers in determining the application.
This situation is envisaged in Government Circular 8/93 where at paragraph 9 of Annex 3 it is stated that planning authorities are not bound to adopt, or include as part of their case, the professional or technical advice given by their own officers, or received from statutory bodies or consultees, but they will be expected to show that they have reasonable planning grounds for taking a decision contrary to such advice; and that they are able to produce relevant evidence to support their decision in all respects. If they fail to do so, costs may be awarded against the authority.
Development Control Committee (West) 5 22 November 2007
The Circular adds that it follows that planning authorities are expected thoroughly to consider relevant advice from a statutory consultee or from another Council (for example a County Council as Highway Authority) or from a Government Department before determining a planning application. Nevertheless it is always the planning authority’s responsibility to ensure that if they adopt such advice their decision is based on a complete understanding of the consultee’s advice or opinion. If the planning authority do not accept or adopt any such advice they should say so and explain why.
Earlier, paragraph 8 of Annex 3 of the Circular indicates that reasons for refusal should be complete, precise, specific and relevant to the application. In any appeal proceedings, the authority will be expected to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal, by reference to the Development Plan and all other material considerations. If they cannot do so, costs may be awarded against them.
Other outstanding issues in relation to the current application
Of the other outstanding issues, a Section 106 Agreement would be required for off-site highway works and to secure the various financial contributions referred to.
The sustainable construction and energy efficiency issues following from ENC6 can be dealt with by negotiation and conditions.
The public art provision can be achieved through a financial contribution through a Section 106 Agreement and the agent has confirmed that there is no connection between the foodstore development and the proposed works to the Bittern Line, referred to by the Melton Constable and Fakenham Railway Company Limited. The former has no physical limitation for the latter and he considers that there is no planning justification for the measures or funding sought by the Railway Company.
Conditions will also be required to cover drainage issues and some of the issues raised by Network Rail.
Conclusion
The proposal is considered to be in conformity with adopted Development Plan and emerging policies and is therefore recommended for approval.
The Outstanding Appeal
Having determined the application the Committee will need to reach a consistent position in respect of the outstanding appeal for a similar proposal under 20030991.
In April 2006 the former Joint Committee indicated that it would have approved the application, subject to resolution of a number of issues and the imposition of conditions as detailed on pages 20 and 21 of the appended report to the West Area Committee. It is recommended that this position be endorsed.
RECOMMENDATION OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST):-
That the application be refused for the following reasons:-
1. Loss of housing.
2. Highway impact.
3. Effect on local businesses.
4. Amount of retail floorspace/scale of the proposal.
It is also recommended that the Planning Inspectorate be informed that the Council wishes to amend its statement dated 26 April 2006, in respect of the forthcoming Public Inquiry, to reflect the stated reasons for refusal of application 20070217.
Development Control Committee (West) 6 22 November 2007
RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL:-
1.) That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control to approve the application subject to no objections from the Government Office of the East of England, further discussions in respect of energy efficiency, the applicants entering into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of the highlighted highway issues and financial contributions, a financial contribution for a public art feature, the provision of a footpath link prior to the commencement of works on site to be secured by a Grampian condition, agreement on the design and signage of the footpath link, the resolution of the outstanding community safety issues and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include:-
1. Highway matters.
2. Materials.
3. 3-hour parking and management plan.
4. Environmental Health conditions.
5. Replacement of Fire Station and community facilities prior to the demolition of existing facilities.
6. Restriction on total retail floorspace to 1,500sq.m.
7. Not more than 20% of sales area to be exclusively for sale of non-convenience goods.
8. No mezzanine floor.
9. No external retail area.
10. Further details of lighting.
11. Further trolley management details.
12. Pedestrian link and entrance details/provision.
13. No café.
14. Appropriate conditions as required by the Community Safety manager, this could include an after hours car park barrier.
15. Street furniture.
16. External surface treatments.
17. Landscaping conditions.
2.) That the Planning Inspectorate be informed that the Council does not wish to amend its statement dated 26 April 2006 in respect of the forthcoming Public Inquiry.
Source: (Andy Mitchell, Extn 6149 - File Reference:20070217-1)
Development Control Committee (West) 7 22 November 2007
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
2. HOLT - 20071303 - Erection of thirty-three dwellings; land off Lodge Close and Edinburgh Road for Flagship Housing Group
To consider whether to grant planning permission for thirty-three affordable dwellings in the Countryside policy area.
Background
This application was considered by Development Control Committee (West) on 8 November 2007 when it was resolved to refer it to the Combined Committee with a recommendation for approval. A copy of the report to that meeting is attached at Appendix 9
Key Policy Issues
1. New housing in the countryside.
2. Impact on the development potential of adjacent land.
3. Loss of playing field.
Appraisal
The site lies in the Countryside policy area adjacent to the development boundary for Holt, and until recently the majority of the site had been used as a playing field. As Holt is designated as a Small Town in the Local Plan the proposed affordable housing development does not accord with Development Plan policies, even though there is a high level of need for social rented housing in the town. However Planning Policy Statement 3, which is a material consideration in the determination of this application, would permit the development of an “exceptions” site adjacent to a village or market town. In addition the proposal would accord with the emerging policy in the Local Development Framework.
A further consideration is the effect that this development could have on the adjoining land area to the south as a potential long-term housing site, which could come forward under future Site Specific proposal in the LDF. However the current proposal would allow limited access to the land to the south as would an access from a road to the east of the site
The loss of the playing field and the lack of any replacement provision would also conflict with Local Plan policy and Sport England policy. At the present time there is an identified deficiency in terms of functional play space in this part of Holt and the loss of this area would only serve to exacerbate the shortfall.
However, given the high identified need for affordable housing, the increased emphasis on the delivery on housing and the inclusion of market towns in terms of possible exception sites under PPS3 together with the emerging Core Strategy, it is considered that a departure from policy would be justified. Furthermore, it is not considered that the development would unduly prejudice the future development of the adjoining land to the south. However it is submitted that to allow the development without the securing of replacement play space provision would be inappropriate and unacceptable and as such it is suggested that the applicants should seek to negotiate alternative replacement provision nearby.
Whilst the West Area Committee accepted the recommendation that a departure from policy would be justified owing to the extent of housing need and in the light of policy changes resulting from PPS3 and the emerging Core Strategy, Members
Development Control Committee (West) 8 22 November 2007
requested that any replacement play space should be of an equivalent size to that which would be lost as a result of the development.
RECOMMENDATION OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE WEST:-
Delegated approval, subject to the securing of a replacement play space the equivalent size to that which would be lost and the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation in respect of the open space and library and highways contributions, and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Reason: The provision of affordable housing is a material consideration which outweighs the policy issue and the Committee considers that development of the site for this purpose is acceptable subject to the provision of an alternative play space.
Source: (Gary Linder, Extn 6152 - File Reference:20071303)
Development Control Committee (West) 9 22 November 2007

<< back to correspondence >>