Appendix 16
REPR.ESENTATIONSON BEHALF
OF TESCO STORESLIMITED
in relationto
Planning Application Reference
Numbers2009/0777and 2009/0818
June2010
(16.1)
Appendix 16
CONTENTS
PAGE
1.
1.1
L.2
1.3
t.4
2.
3.
4.
4.t
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.LL
4.t2
4.13
4.t4
4.15
4.t6
5.
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
EX E cu rrvE
su MMA R y..
................:
Introduction
The WeybourneRoadApplication.
T h eC r o m e rR o a dA p p l i c a t i o n . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions
.....i...........
BACKGROUND..............
T H EP U R P O SOEFT H E S ER E P R E S E N T A T I O N S . . . . , . . . .
THEWEYBOURNE
ROADAPPLICATION
,.............
Preamble...
T h e G r e e n h o u sCeo n c e p t . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T h e P r o p o s eW
d aitrose
Supermarket...............
T h e F o o dA c a d e m y
Design
R e l a t i o n s hw
i pi t ht h e T o w nC e n t r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sustainability.............
Highways...
Empfoyment/Investment...............
Tourism,....
Education
Lossof Allotments
Impacton OpenSpace
Impacton the NorfolkCoastarea of outstanding
naturalbeauty.......
I m p a c to n A r c h a e o l o g y . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions
T H EC R O M E RO A DA p p L r C A T r O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preamble...
T h eS c h e m e
T h eT e s c oS u p e r m a r k e t . . . . : . . . . . . . . . .
The IndependentUnits
Design
Pedestrian
Linkand relationship
with the TownCentre
Sustainability.............
Highways...
A f f o r d a b lH
e ousing
Trees........
Conclusions
S C H E D U L1E. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T A B L EO F K E yI S S U E S
S C H E D U L2E
..............
REASONS
FORREFUSAL
OFTHEWEYBOURNE
ROADAPPLICATION..............
......1
...... 1
..........1
. . . . . . .3
. . . . . .3
..;...4
.........,.........4
......5
.......5
. . . . . . . . 5.
........7
. . . . . . . . . .t.2
. . . . . . . . . .1. 3
. . . . . . . . .1 3
. . . . . .1 3
. . . . .1 5
. . . . .t 7
. . . . .t 7
....... 1g
............1g
...... 1g
..........19
. . . . . . . . . . .1. 9
.... 19
. . . . . . . . .2. 0
.....20
....21
.......22
...... 25
...........26
.............27
. . . . . .Z g
.....29
...........29
. . . . .3 0
.... 30
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. 2
..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. 3
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. .4.
...........34
A P P E N D I1X. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. .7.
Letterfrom ScottWilson
................37
A P P E N D I2X. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. 8. .
Optionsto improvethe PedestrianLink betweenthe Cromerroad Site and StationRoad............3g
APPENDT
3 .X. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. 9. .
D r a f tP l a n n i n O
g bligations,............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. 9
.
APPEND4
I X. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.0, .
CommitteeReportsand Minutesconcerninglossof AffordableHousingfrom CromerRoad..........40
(16.2)
Appendix 16
REPRESENTATIONSON BEHALFOF TESCOSTORESLIMITED
in relation to
Pfanning Applications 2OO9/ O777 and 2OO9l0813
1.
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
1.1
Introduction
L.2
1.1.1
This representation is submitted by Ashurst LLp on behalf of resco stores
Limited ("Tesco") concerningplanning applicationreference2009/og1g on
behalf of resco (the "cromer Road Application") and planningapplication
reference 2009/0777 on behalf of Greenhouse country stores Limited
("Greenhouse") (the "Weybourne Road Application',).
It is our
understandingthat the two applicationswill now be reconsideredby North
Norfolk District council (the "council") following receipt by the council of
legal advice that the Developmentcontrol committee's decisionof 4 March
2010 was unsound.
1.L.2
we invite the council to look beyond the marketing hype of the weybourne
RoadApplicationto the reality of what is proposed,which is a supermarketin
an out-of centre locationand an unconnected,independentFoodAcademywith
provisionfor replacementallotments. The entire proposalis contraryto local
and national poliry; it serves one purpose which is to seek to prevent the
council from approving a proposalfor a policy compliancesupermarketat
CromerRoad.
1.1.3
The council is requestedto considerafresh the cromer Road Applicationand
the benefits that will flow from Tesco'sinvestment in Sheringhamtown centre
- a new fire station, a new community centre, new homes
and money for
affordablehousing.
L.7.4
we also seek to addressthe variouscommentsthat have been made about the
cromer Road Applicationand present a number of additional measuresto
overcomeoutstandingconcerns.
The Weybourne Road Application
L.2.L
From the statements that have been made by Greenhouseand its agents,
there is very seriouscauseto believethat the schemewould not and could not
deliveron its promises.
L.2.2
There is no doubt in the independentadvicethat has been given to the Council
that locating a supermarket on the site at weybourne Road is contrary to
policybecause(amongstother things) the distancebetweenthe site and other
shops means that development would have an unacceptableimpact on
sheringhamtown centre and would do nothing to reduce, but would rather
increase,the use of the privatecar. It would also draw a significantamount of
trade away from Sheringhamtown centre.
L.2.3
This is clearly recognised by Greenhouse as they seek to justifo the
supermarketdevelopmentas one paft of a "unique concept,'of three interlinked, food-relateduses, which they claim is sustainableand which would
deliver benefitsin employment,tourism and education. These claims simply
do not stand up to analysisand are a smokescreento encouragethe Councilto
depaft from its carefullyconsideredand importantplanningpolicies.
(16.3)
Appendix 16
1.2.4
The three elements of the weyborne Road Application have no tangibte
relationshipwith eachother:
(a)
The allotments are to be laid out irrespectiveof whether planning
permissionis grantedfor the FoodAcademyor supermarketand will be
owned by sheringham Town council and let as plots to private
individuals. No food grown on the allotmentswould be used in Food
Academyor sold in the supermarket;
(b)
The Food Academy is intended to be operationallyand financially
independent of the allotments and the supermarket and no food
preparedat the FoodAcademywould be sold in the supermarket;
(c)
The supermarketwould simply be a supermarket. It is said that it
would be operated by waitrose on a normal commercialbasis quite
independentlyfrom eitherthe FoodAcademyor the allotments.
t.2.5
Accordingly,there is no reasonwhy the three elements of the weybourne Road
Application need to be located on the same site and no justification for
departingfrom adoptedpolicy.
t.2.6
There is no businesscasefor the FoodAcademy. It would be relianton income
generated either from the services it offers or from private donations about
which no informationis provided. Mr Hay smith has suggesteda willingnessto
offer a non-bindingcommitmentto fund the Food Academyfor three years.
Thereafter it looks destined to become at best a white Elephant, at worst a
vacant unit providing potentialto expand the retail offer establishedon the site
by the proposedWaitrosestore.
L.2.7
Any benefits to be derived from the use of sustainable technology are
overstatedand outweighedby the impact of developmenttaking place on a
g reenfield, out-of-centre site.
1.2.8
Measuressuch as the electric bus servicecannot be guaranteedin even the
shoft term. In any event the need for public transpoft of this nature stems
from the fact that the locationis unsustainableand would simply draw trade
from and harm Sheringhamtown centre. The CountyCouncilstill maintainsits
very strong objection to the weybourne RoadApplicationfor these reasons.
t.2.9
Full and proper considerationshould be given to the potentiallysignificant
harm that developmentwould haveon:
L.2.LO
(a)
the environmentof sheringhamby the loss of designatedopen space
and the further encroachmentof the town on the open countryside;
(b)
the setting of the GradeII* listedSheringhampark;
(c)
the character and appearanceof the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding
NaturalBeauty;and
(d)
the archaeological
remainsthat lie under the site.
It is clear that the debate has now moved away from need for a supermarket
and is now focussedon appropriatelocation. The weybourneRoadApplication
is opportunistic- it is an attempt by those who are opposedto Tesco to seek
to preventTescofrom buildingout a policycompliantschemefor the benefitof
the peopleof Sheringham.
(16.4)
Appendix 16
t.2.L7
1.3
t.4
Personal objection to Tesco is not a good or lawful basis for approving a
proposalwhich is clearlyin conflictwith local and nationalplanningpolicy.
The Cromer Road Application
1.3.1
The cromer Road Applicationwill, if approved,deliver significantinvestment
into sheringham. The proposedresco supermarketis part of a wider package
of developmentcomprisinga new fire station, a new communitycentre, a new
community hub and new homes, including affordable housing. That
investmentwill be lost, if the decisionsthat the Committeereachedon 4 March
are not reversed.
t.3.2
The proposed resco supermarket has been criticised by some for being too
large and members have expressedconcernsthat the independentunits that
are proposedalongsidethe supermarketare simply a devicewhichTescocould
use to extend its retail offer, either directly or by proxy. Tesco wishes to
reassurethe Councilin the strongestterms possiblethat this is not the case.
Indeed, Tesco will agree to the following measures,as necessary,to overcome
these concerns:
(a)
a conditionlimitingthe net retail floor area within the supermarket;
(b)
a condition limiting the retail floor area to be used for the sale of
comparisongoodswithin the supermarket;
(c)
a condition prohibitingthe use of any of the proposedindependent
units in conjunctionwith or ancillaryto the supermarkeUand
(d)
a planningobligationthat Tescowill let the units for rent which is less
than, or equal to, the prevailingmarket rent in Sheringhamand that
Tesco will work with the Councilto ensure that the units are occupied
for usesthat will benefitSheringham.
1.3.3
Tesco is also willing to amend the cromer Road Applicationand remove the
two independentunits that do not form part of the structure of the main
building. These amendmentswill be submitted to the council by Monday,12
July 2010 with the intention that the council will have sufficient time to
considerthe amendments,undertakethe necessaryconsultationand report
the revised scheme to the Committee at the same time as it reconsidersthe
WeybourneRoadApplication.
1.3.4
Furthermore,as Tesco has now securedcontrol of the land necessaryto deliver
a wider pedestrianlink betweenthe site and Station Road, it will enter into a
planningobligationthat would requireit to submit a planningapplicationprior
to commencementof the store developmentand, subject to approvalby the
council,carry out the additionalworksto providethe wider pedestrianlink.
Conclusions
L.4.t
The cromer Road Application addresses the reasons for refusing Tesco's
previousproposalsfor this site and demonstratesa clearcommitmentby Tesco
to work with the council and the local community to deliver a schemewhich
meets the identified need and complies fully with the local and national
planningpolicy. It shouldthereforebe approved.
L.4.2
The weybourne Road Applicationis unsustainable. It would not deliver the
benefits it promisesand would have a very harmful impact on sheringham.
Membersshould follow the clear advice of the Council'sofficers,its external
(16.5)
Appendix 16
consultants and Norfolk County Council and refuse the Weybourne Road
Application.
1.4.3
It is clear from the meetingheld on 4 March2010 that much of the opposition
to the Cromer Road Applicationstemmed from the personal oppositionto
Tesco of a few members. This opposition is not a lawful or justifiable reason
for seeking to refuse a planning applicationfor a scheme which provides
Sheringhamwith a much neededsupermarketand also deliversctear tangible
benefits in terms of replacementfire station, community centre and money for
affordablehousing. Tescois also willing to make further amendmentsto the
planningapplicationby way of omissionof some of the independentretail units
and impositionof controlsover the use of the remaining independentretail
units to ensure that there is no prospect of those units being used for the sale
of goods associatedwith Tesco.
L.4.4
Tescowould welcomeviewsof officersand memberson its proposalsto amend
the scheme to address any lingering concerns. This is in the hope and
expectation that Tesco and the Council can work together with a view to
ensuring that a scheme is delivered which meets and addresses the
requirementsand aspirationsof the localcommunity.
2.
BACKGROUND
2.1
On 4 March 2010, the Council, acting by its DevelopmentControl Committee (the
"committee"), considered the "weybourne Road Application,, and the "cromer
Road Application".
2.2
The Committee heard representations
from each applicantas well as from third parties
both for and against each application. Membersalso receivedadvicefrom the Council's
officersand appointedexternalretail planningconsultant,Mark Wood of MWA (.MWA.).
The officers' recommendationwas that the WeybourneRoadApplicationshould be refused
and the Cromer RoadApplicationbe approved. However,Membersresolvedagainstboth
recommendationsand gave officers delegatedauthority to approve the Weybourne Road
Application and refuse the Cromer Road Application, subject to obtaining advice from
Counselthat the decisionswere soundand legallydefensible.
2.3
on 15 March2010, the Councilreceivedfurther representations
from Bidwellson behalfof
Greenhousewhich sought to offer reasonsand justificationfor the Committee'sdecision.
The Councilthen receiveda separateletter from RichardHewitt, a third party opponent of
the Cromer Road Application,dated 22 March 2010, which also purportedto justifli the
Committee'sdecision.
2.4
On 10 April 2010, the Committeeapprovedminutesof the 4 MarchCommitteemeeting,
subject to minor amendment (the "Minutes"). The Minutes record (inter alia) that
neither the reasons suggested by Bidwells nor those put forward by Mr Hewitt for the
committee's decisionwere the reasonsgiven by Membersof the committee.
2.5
On 10 April 2010, the Committeealso receivedthe advice from Counselthat the actual
reasons given by the Committee both for refusing the Cromer Road Application and for
approvingthe WeybourneRoadApplicationwere unsoundand could not be defendedat
law. Accordingly,the Committee was advised that the two applicationsmust be
reconsideredby the Council.
3.
THE PURPOSEOF THESEREPRESENTATIONS
3.1
These representationsare made on behalf of Tesco in the context of the applications
being reconsideredby the Council. We address each of the key issues pertinent to the
weybourneRoadApplicationand cromer RoadApplicationand in so doing:
(16.6)
Appendix 16
3.1.1
respondto the inaccurateand misleadinginformationsubmitted on behalf of
Greenhouse;
3.1.2
address the attempts by those opposed to Tesco to formulate policy and
reasonsfor refusal; and
3.1.3
clarifycertainpointsrelatingto the Tescoproposal.
3.2
Referencesthroughout these representationsto "Bidwells paragraphs" are (unless
otherwise indicated) references to paragraphs of the representations submitted by
Bidwellson behalfof Greenhouseon 15 March2010 referredto above.
4.
THE WEYBOURNEROAD APPLICATION
4.7
Preamble
4.2
4.t.L
The WeybourneRoadApplicationseeksplanningpermissionto build a ClassA1
Retail Supermarket (which it is understood would be operated by Waitrose
Limited) and a Class D1 educational building (dubbed the "Norfolk Food
Academy")at an out-of-centresite at the very edge of Sheringham. The site,
which is currentlyused as allotments,is designatedas open space,is adjacent
the NorfolkCoastArea of OutstandingNaturalBeautyand is within the setting
of SheringhamPark, an important Grade IIx listed historicfeature. The site
also has high archaeologicalpotential,which would be placed under serious
threat by the scaleof developmentthat is proposed.
4't'2
It is evident that the Weybourne Road site is inherently unsuitable for
developmentof the type and scale proposed by Greenhouseand that to
approve the Weybourne Road Applicationwould be contrary to the local
development plan and national planning policy and guidance. However,
Greenhouseargues that developmentshould be permitted on the basis that
the Weybourne Road Application presents a "unique concept", which will
deliver benefits for Sheringham in a sustainableway. The concept is
developmentthat links how food is grown, how food is preparedand cooked
and how food is bought and sold in a way which makes use of renewable
energy technologies. Greenhouseargues that the benefits are that the
developmentwould provide Sheringhamwith a much needed supermarket,
employment, education and a tourist attraction. It follows, however, that if
the conceptis found to be without foundationor is unviable,or if the benefits
are overstated or can be delivered in some other, possibly more sustainable,
way, there is simply no justification for permitting a schemethat is so contrary
to policyand that would result in immediateand tangibleharm.
The Greenhouse Concept
4.2.1
The Councilshould be very cautiousabout acceptingthe Greenhouseconcept.
We considerit to be grosslyoverstatedand misleading.
4.2.2
The three elements of the scheme (the supermarket, the Norfolk Food
Academyand the off-site replacementallotments)are unrelatedbeyond their
loose associationswith the food industry. On objective analysis of what
Greenhousepropose,it is clear that the three elementsof the schemehave no
operationalor commercialrelationshipto each other and there is no cogent
reasonwhy they need to be locatedtogether on one site or, indeed, specifically
on land at WeybourneRoadin Sheringham.
The Allotments
(16.7)
Appendix 16
4.2.3
Allotments,to replacethose that will be lost through development,are to be
laid out on an adjacentsite owned by sheringhamTown council. The plots will
be let to and tended by private individualswho will have no connectionto
either Greenhouseor waitrose,the NorfolkFoodAcademyor the supermarket.
Foodgrown on the allotmentswould not be used in the Norfolk FoodAcademy
and will not be sold in the store. Indeed, the store must operate exacting
quality assurancestandards, which the food grown on the allotments is
unlikelyto meet.
4.2.4
It should also be noted that Hollandssheringham Limited (the owner of the
Weybourne Road site) has entered into an unconditional contract with
SheringhamTown Council under which it will deliver the new allotments
regardlessof whether per:missionis granted for the Weybourne Road scheme.
Indeed,work to lay out the allotmentshas alreadybegun. The allotmentsare,
therefore,quite independentof the other elementsof the schemeand certainly
do not form an indivisiblepart of any overarchingconceptor schemeof uses.
Nortolk Food Academy
4.2.5
serious thought needsto be given to what exacUyis being proposedby the
Norfolk Food Academy,what function it would have and why it needs to be at
this out-of-centrelocationon the edge of sheringham. There is no business
case for the Academy - the applicant has refused to produce one despite
requestsfrom the Council(see Bidwells'letter dated 4 February2010).
4.2.6
The applicant has stated that the Food Academy would operate independenily
of the retail store. However, without a business case, it is not possibleto
assesswhether the FoodAcademywould be commerciallyviable. No funding
for it has been identifiedother than a non-bindingcommitment from clive
Hay-smith,the individualdriving Greenhouse,to pay for its constructionand
the first three years of operation. Bidwells' letter of 18 February 2010
confirmsthat, thereafter,funding must come from other sources- publicand
privatedonationsand incomegeneratedby the Academyitself. No information
has been submitted about the likely cost of running the Food Academyand
thereforeno informationis availableabout how much courseswould cost and
whether they would be viable for those who have been identifiedas potential
users of the Food Academy.such questionsdo not appear to have been asked
by those individualsin local education who have expressed their support
publicly.
4.2.7
There would be a clear desire to operate the Food Academy on a commercial
basis and, given that it is the most likely element of the Food Academyto
generate profit, the restaurant would predictably become the dominant use,
potentially to the detriment of the restaurantsand cafes in sheringham town
centre.
Retail Store
4.2.8
Bidwells'letter of 4 February2010 confirms that the supermarketwould be
financiallyindependentof the other two elementsof the Greenhousescheme.
This is reinforced by the intention for the supermarket to be operated by
Waitrose.
4.2.9
Bidwells have also confirmed that the store would not be "enabling
development"for eitherof the other two elementsof the scheme,which means
that both the allotmentsand the Food Academycould be built irrespectiveof
whether or not the supermarket is permitted. There is therefore no
justificationfor the supermarketbeing sited adjacenteither the allotmentsor
(16.8)
Appendix 16
_
4.3
the Norfolk Food Academy beyond the fact that all three uses are loosely
connectedwith food.
4'2.t0
The applicanthas not offered any commitmenteither to sell producefrom the
allotments in the supermarket or to sell food from the Norfolk Food Academy
(savefor some items in the caf6).
4.2.tL
The evidence before the Council is therefore contrary to what is said by
Bidwellsat paragraphs3.4 and 3.6. The evidenceactually suggeststhat the
allotmentsand the Academyare nothingmore than a Trojan Horseto delivera
Waitrosesupermarketin an unsustainable,out-of-townlocation, There is no
reasonwhy the planningpoliciesshouldnot be appliedrobustlyin determining
whether or not planning permissionshould be granted for a supermarketat
WeybourneRoad.
The Proposed Waitrose Supermarket
Core Strategy policy ECS
4.3.1
Bidwells'paragraph3.43 assertsthat the WeybourneRoadApplicationaccords
with policy ECSof the Council'sadoptedCoreStrategy. This does not stand up
to analysis.
4.3.2
PolicyEC5pertainsto Locationof Retailand CommercialLeisureDevelopment.
It commences:
"New retail and commerciat leisure proposals in Principal and Secondary
Settlements will be permitted, provided that their location and size compties
with the following, or, it can be demonstrated that the size of the proposat
addressesa specific quantitative or qualitative need within the catchment area
served by the town'.1
4.3.3
Poliry EC5 identifies"Acceptable"locationsfor retail proposals.In Secondary
Settlementssuch as Sheringham2"Acceptable"locations are: the "Defined
Primary Shopping Area" for developments with a net sales area of 5OO-749
square metres and "Withinthe developmentboundaryon the best sequentially
availablesite".
4.3.4
It is clear from the Minutes of the 4 March Committee meeting that some
Membersconsiderthat PolicyEC5 placesa limit on retail developmentgreater
than 750 sq m. However,this is not the case. The TescoAppealInspectorin
a cogentanalysisof this policyconfirmedthat:
"Policy ECS in the emerging core strategy provides a general indication but
does not, as some suggest, place an embargo on retail proposalsin excessof
750 m2 in the town. A larger store would not be precluded providing, amongst
other things, that a local need exists. I have carefutty considered the
comments of the cs Inspector in relation to policy ECSand whether he was
basing his conclusionson the assumption that the proposed resco store had
actually been permitted. The subsequent ctarification corrects any
misapprehension but, in my opinion, the conclusioh is clear that no specific
quantum of floorspace is endorsed,.3
1 North NorfolkCore
Strategy(adoptedSeptember2OO8),pages93 and 94
2 North Norfolkcore
strategy (adoptedseptember2oo8), policysS1, page23, poricyss12, pages1
3 Appealdecisionby
ChristinaDownes,proposeddevelopmentby Tescostores Limitedat cromer Road,Sheringham
(APPN262O|A/06/2009208)
dated 8 September2008, paragraph11, page3
(16.9)
Appendix 16
4.3.5
Fufthermore,at the Committeemeetingon 4 March2010:
"The Acting Development control Manager exptained that the core strategy
Policy Ecs did not set a maximum limit but that any retail devetopment in
excess of 750m2 would need to be clearly justified in accordance with the
policy". a
4.3.6
4.3.7
what Policy EC5 actually does, is to set a series of tests which must be
satisfiedto enable the grant of planning permissionfor retail development
above the threshold. These tests are entirely compatible with the tests
requiredof applicantsby PPS4.For proposalsthat do not complywith the strict
starting parameters described at paragraph 2.2 above, it should be
demonstratedthat:
(a)
a need exists within the catchment area for the scale and Wpe of
developmentproposed(although PPS4has removed the "need" test
imposedby its predecessor
for retail development,ppS6); and
(b)
no sequentiallypreferablesite is available,suitableand viable (starting
with the town centre, edge-of-centre sites then out-of-centre
locations);and
(c)
the proposeddevelopmentwould not, individuallyor cumulatively,have
a significantadverseeffect on the vitality and viability of existingtown
centresor nearbyServiceVillagesor CoastalServiceVillages;and
(d)
the proposeddevelopmentwould be accessibleby a choiceof meansof
transport,includingpublictransport,walking,cyclingand the car.
It is these tests, read in conjunctionwith the more recently publishednational
policiesin PPS4,which must be appliedto the weybourneRoadApplication.
Seq uenti a I Assessrnent
4.3.8
Bidwellsparagraph3.55 acknowledgesthat proper applicationof policy EC5
and PPs4 requires that planning permission should be refused where
compliancewith the sequentialapproachhas not been demonstrated.
4.3.9
PPS4is clear that "out-of-centre"sites such as weybourne Road can only be
consideredfor economicdevelopmentinvolvingmain town centre useswhen it
has been demonstratedthat no sequentiallypreferablesites are available,
suitable and viable for the developmentproposed.In the absenceof "town
centre sites", sites "in or on the edge of existing centres" are the next
preferredoptions. It is commonground that the cromer Roadsite is an "edgeof-centre"location. Accordingly,Bidwells'sequentialassessmentrelieson:
(a)
CromerRoadbeing rejectedas a viablesite. No regard is given to any
other sequentiallypreferablesites, includingthe Hilbre school site on
Holway Road which is closer to the Core Retail Area of Sheringham
town centre than the Weybourne Road site by approximately 300
metres; and
(b)
the argument that the Greenhouseconcept cannot be disaggregated
(Bidwells' paragraph 3.52).
For the reasons given above, the
4 North NorfolkDistrict
council Minutesof the specialmeetingof the Developmentcontrol committee,4 March2010, page9
5 PPS4,PoliciesECS.2
a, b and c and EC15.1b and c
8
(16.10)
Appendix 16
"Greenhouse
concept"shouldbe rejected. The stated inter-relationship
betweenthe proposedusesdoes not stand up to analysis.
4.3.10
Bidwells paragraph3.49 invites Membersto concludethat their sequential
assessmentis satisfactory. However,it is clearthat the Council'sindependent
retail consultant, MWA, consideredthe assessmentto be far from acceptable
in PPS4terms. MWAfound that:
"the GCP/Weybourne Road proposal inuolves development of an out-of-centre
Iocation which is defined in Annex B of PPS4as a location which is not in or on
the edge of a town centre but not necessarilyoutside the urban area. The site
involves greenfield, undeveloped land which falls within the settlement
boundary for Sheringham. The distance from (sic, "between") the Core Retait
Area and the store does not provide easy pedestrian accessand in our opinion
the clear policy requirement of the PPSis to try to ensure that this is likety to
haPPel" ' s
4'3.11
MWAgave the Councilclear guidanceabout the failure of the WeybourneRoad
site to meet the requirementsof the sequentialapproachto development,a
cornerstoneof town planningpolicyand practicein Englandand wales:
"/Vo sites within the town centre have been identified as being available,
suitable and viable for the development of a supermarket proposed by either
Applicant. In our opinion, all options have been thoroughty assessed".T
"It therefore remains our considered opinion that the site at Cromer Road
provides the most advantageous location relative to its accessibitity by atl
forms of transport and would improve consumer choice and competition in a
way which provides maximum opportunities for the town centre to benefit from
Iinked shopping and other trip*"
"The distance from the Core RetailArea and the store does not provide easy
pedestrian access and in our opinion the clear policy requirement of the PPSis
to try to ensure that this is likely to happen, continues to count against the
sr'te3 sequential credentiats as long as the land at cromer Road
remains suihble, available and viable for the development of a
supermarket of the scale required"e.
4.3-L2
Given the Cromer Road Applicationcomplieswith policy (nationaland local),
there is no need to give any detailed considerationto the Weybourne Road
Applicationas it clearly does not meet the strict requirementsof the sequential
approach(PolicyEC17.1aof PPS4). The WeybourneRoad proposalalso has
limited accessibilityby transport modesother than the private car. This was a
major factor in the proposed termination of involvement in the planning
applicationconsultation process by Norfolk County Council (the "County
Council"),as local highway authoritylowhich, when proposingsix reasonsfor
the refusalof planningpermissionon sustainabletransport grounds,assumed
that the Councilwould not countenancesupportingsuch a proposal.
Impact
5 SRUby MWA, February
2OtO paragraph2.z7
7 SnU by MWA,February
2010, paragraph2.21
8 SnU by MwA, February
2010, paragraph2.30
e SnU by MWA, February
ZOLO,parcgraph2,27
10consultationresponse
from the Director of Envlornment,Transportand DeveloBment,Norfolk county council to North
NorfolkDistrictCouncildated 20 October2OO9
(16.11)
Appendix 16
4.3.13
Notwithstandingthat the weybourne Road Application fails sequential
assessment,the Council should also consider the impact that the scheme
would have on sheringhamtown centre. A robust and independentanalysisof
the potentialimpact of the scheme has been provided by MWA who advised
the Council:
"we have already estimated from the Applicant's own assessment, that the
food and convenience goods retailers are likely to achieve a total combined
turnover 81.8m below sustainable trading levels in 2013 after the opening of
the proposed (Greenhouse) supermarket. This is 27o/o below that judged
necessary by the Applicant to sustain in the longer term the vitality and
viability of the convenience goods retail base in the centre. Without a critical
review of these assumptions we believe that the scheme would reduce the
town's turnover in food and convenience goods to unacceptabty low and
unsustainable levels contrary to criteria d. of policy ECl6.7".11
"We remain of the view that the information submitted in support of the
supermarket at Weybourne Road if taken at face value predicts a significant
adverse impact on Sheringham town centre,,. 12
4.3.14
Moreover,the Greenhousefigures,upon which MWA'sassessmentis based,do
not relate to a Waitrosestore. The view of MWAis that Waitrose:
"wo.tld potentially generate a higher convenience goods turnover (by around
€lm) in the design yeaf"s
"The use of an appropriate sales density for Waitrose would increase the
potential design year turnover by approximately 87.1m thereby increasing
rather than decreasing the impacf,.14
4.3.15
This additionalturnover (an increaseof 9.5oloon €11.590m from the sale of
conveniencegoodsls)would involve further unmitigated loss of turnover and
activity in Sheringhamtown centre. The absence of proper assessmentdoes
not address salient matters relating to retail impact, including that "profit
margins of many of the smaller convenienceshops appear to be relatively
narrow" 16,
4.3.t6
A supermarket operated by Waitrose is something very different from
"Countrystore" described and assessedby Bidwells in the Weybourne Road
Application. The identificationof Waitroseas the intendedoperatorwill have
an affect on each stage of the means assessmentprescribed in the 'Practice
Guidance on need, impact and the sequential assessmenf that was published
as a supplementto PPS4. Most notably, Trade Draw assumptions,impact
considerationsand the consequencesof impact on existing centres and
facilities,which PPS4considersto be the "The final and most importantstep in
the impact assessmentstagg"rz.. It is such an important step becauseit seeks
to test the possibleconsequences
of proposeddevelopments(and allocations
11SRUby MWA,February
2010, paragraph2.50
12SRUby MWA,February
2010, paragraphS.2
13 sRU by MWA,February
2010, paragraph2.39
14 SRUby MWA,February
2010, paragraph3.2 bullet 2
1sRetailAudit of the Pioposed
countrystoreand Noffolk FoodAcademy:Land at weybourne Road, sheringhamby MWAon
behalfof North NorfolkDistrictCouncil,paragraphS.2O
16 Appeal decision by
Christina Downes,proposed developmentby Tesco Stores Limited at Cromer Road, Shertngham
(APPN262O/N06I2009208)
dated8th September2008, paragraph20, pageG
L7PPS4,AppendixD, ',euantifying
Impact,',paragraphD.31 on page9g
10
(16.12)
Appendix 16
and policy options)on the overallvitality and viabilityof town centres,and on
individualindicatorsof this generalretailhealth.
4.3.L7
ParagraphD.34 of the PracticeGuidanceadviseson considerationsof impact
on existing trade/turnover for the classesof goods proposedto be sold from a
known. development.However, Bidwellsdid not make that assessment:it
confined itself to an assessmentof the unknown, untried and untested
Greenhouseconcept, rather than analysingthe impact potentialof the much
more familiar Waitroseconcept.Consequently,
the Councilhas no clear idea of
how current patterns of shopping and travel would be expected to change
becauseof the different trade and turnover profile of a Waitrose store in the
proposed Weybourne Road Applicationscheme, rather than the "unique
concept" "GreenhouseCountrystore"describedso effusively in the Weybourne
RoadApplication.
4.3.18
The PracticeGuidanceat paragraphD.35 stressesthe importanceof examining
the likely impact of new developmentagainstthe current vitality and viability
of existing centres.For example,where new investmentis plannedwithin an
existing centre (as is the case with the proposed town centre cromer Road
Application),the most significantconsequences
of a competingdevelopment
may be the impact on the centre's potential to increasemarket share, or
achieve"claw-back"neededto supportthe new investment.MWA had advised
the council that sheringham could only accommodateone of the two retail
foodstores proposed; approving the weybourne Road Application would
consign the cromer Road Applicationto the list of abandonedtown centre
investments.
4.3.19
Thus, incontrovertibly,there is no proper pps4 assessmentof the Greenhouse
schemenow beforethe Council.
4.3.20
Nevertheless,it is clear from the advicegiven to the council by MWAthat the
need for a new supermarketin sheringham "is pressingand therefore it is
important to ensure that a new supermarket is delivered as quickly as
ts
PoSsible".
4.3.21
It is therefore relevant that MWAconsiderthat:
"The cromer Road site offers the greatest oppoftunity for securing the
Government objectives in an edge-of-centre location and on previously
developed land'. 1s
4.3.22
This advice confirms the superiorityof the clear cromer Road site both in
terms of its much better accessibility(hence providing greater "inclusivity,')
and its ability for a retail foodstore to interact with and benefit the rest of
Sheringhamtown centre.
rmpact on existing,
investment
4.3.23
committed
and
planned public
and
private
It followsthat if the weybourne RoadApplicationis approvedand the cromer
Road Applicationrefused planning permission,then the following investment
would be lost from the town centre and from sheringham as a whole and
18sRU by MwA, February
2010, paragraph2.15
le SRUby MWA,February
2010, paragraph2.5
11
(16.13)
Appendix 16
recallingMWA'sadvice to the Councilthat the Cromer Road scheme"would
form part of the town centre(althoughnot the Core RetailArea;" zo.
(a)
the re-development of a brownfield edge-of-town centre site the
existing developmenton which makes poor use of such a centrallylocatedsite and which is characterised
by utilitarian,unattractive,nearobsolescentbuildingsand its replacementwith a proposeddevelopment
which..
"is to be welcomed", the design of which "is compatible with the scate
and general character of the town centre. The development is of the
right size and scale and in the right ptace. It should function effectively
and efficiently for pedestriansand vehicles atike. Moreover the design is
innovative and relevant to the town of SheilnghaJn',zt
The appeal Inspector recognised"that many would welcome the sociat
and economic benefits, including the job oppoftunities that the new
store would provide,' 22
4.4
(b)
Replacementcommunity facilities (in the form of a fire station and
communitycentre) designedand built to contemporarystandardsand
more capableof meetingthe various needs of their ownersand users.
Both sets of communityfacilitieshave planning permissionand would
be built and be ready for use before the proposedretail foodstorecould
open for trade:
(c)
E!'Zm by way of commuted payment by Tesco to the Counciland
whichwould be usedfor affordablehousing.
The Food Academy
4.4.1
On the basisthat there is no tangiblelink betweenthe three elementsof the
WeybourneRoadscheme,there is no justificationfor locatingthe NorfolkFood
Academyon the same site as either the allotmentsor the supermarket.There
is no justificationfor its locationon this site.
4.4.2
MWAreacheda similarconclusionin its adviceto the council that it should:
"...not accept the claim on behalf of Mr Hay-smith that it is necessaryto have
the supermarket and Food Academy sited in closeproximity"2j.
4.4.3
MWA queried whether the Norfolk Food Academy should, in fact, be assessed
as "economicdevelopment"and demonstrateconformitywith ppS4r4;although
he considersthat "it is not necessarilya main town centre us€,'2s,
pps4 cleaily
statesthat:
20sRU by MWA,February
2010, paragraph2.32
21Reportto the Development
control committee,4 March2010, pege34, consultationresponsefrom the council,s
Conservatlon,Designand Landscape
Manager(Conservation
and Design)
22Appealdeclsionletter, paragraph
42
23SRUby MwA, February
2010, paragraph2.31
2asupplementary
Retallupdate: Proposed
countrystoreand NorfolkFoodAcademy,Landat weybourneRoad,sheringham
and ProposedFoodstore,Landat cromer Road,sheringham:MWAon behalfof North Norfolk
Districtcouncil,February
2010, paragraph5.2 (henceforthreferredto as "SRUby MWA,February2010,,
25ditto
t2
(16.14)
Appendix 16
"All planning applications for economic development should be assessed
agai nst the fo IIowi ng impact considerati on s26',
:
4.5
4.6
Design
4.5.1
The Council'sConservation,Designand LandscapeManagersuggestedin his
consultationresponseon the WeybourneRoad proposalsthat sustainability
considerations seemed to dominate the design approach to modern
developmentsand impliedthat in this casethat had been to the detriment of
its visual impact.The impoftanceof this criticismis heightenedby the fact that
the site adjoins an Historic Landscapeat SheringhamPark and the Norfolk
CoastArea of OutstandingNaturalBeauty.
4.5.2
Locationis a function of sustainability.The locationof the WeybourneRoad
site makesthe WeybourneRoadschemeinherentlyunsustainable,
The Director
of Environment,Transport and Developmentof the Council made his views
about the unsustainability
of the WeybourneRoadsite very clearto the District
Council.2T
Relationship with the Town Centre
4.6.1
"we have doubts about the degree to which a supermarket at Weybourne Road
would be able to generate linked pedestrian or other shopping trips". za
.
4.6.2
4.7
Bidwellsparagraph3.10 assertsthat a store at WeybourneRoad would not
competewith, but complement,Sheringhamtown centre. This argumentwas
also put to Membersby supportersof the WeybourneRoadApplicationduring
the Committee meeting on 4 March and appearedto find sympathy in the
minds of some Members despite the firm advice by MWA that it would
compete with Sheringham town centre. However, no evidence is offered in
support of this statement,which goes againstthe advice that the Councilhas
receivedfrom its independentexpeft, MWA. That advice is that a supermarket
at WeybourneRoad, whether operated by Waitroseor not, would compete w1h
and draw trade away from the existing town centre food retailers. Such
competitionis, in itself, no bad thing, but becauseof the distance of the
WeybourneRoad site from the town centre, shoppers would be less able and
less inclined to visit the town centre either before or after their trip to
WeybourneRoad (and certainly not by foot) than they would have done from
the existingtown centrefood retairers.MWAconcludesthat:
In this context, Greenhouseoffers no evidence in support of the claim in
Bidwells paragraph 3.12 that the WeybourneRoad scheme would increase
expenditurein Sheringhamtown centre. On the contrary,the proposalwould
be a freestanding, one- stop shop, remote and totally unconnectedto
Sheringham town centre and would serve to draw even further trade away
from the town centre.
Sustainability
4.7.t
Bidwellsparagraph3.52 offersthe sustainabilitymeasuresof composting,wind
turbine, excess heat transfer as reasonsfor why the developmentneeds to be
locatedon a large site out of centre. This is wholly counter-intuitiveand flies
in the face of Governmentpolicy which recognisesthat the harm caused by
26PlannlngPolicystatement
4: Planningfor sustainableEconomicGrowth,DCLG,December2009, policyEC10.2
27Consultationresponse
from the Directorof Environment,Transportand Development,Norfolkcounty Councilto North
NorfolkDistrictCouncil,dated20 October2009
28sRU by MwA, February
2010, paragraph2.46
13
(16.15)
Appendix 16
locating the development on an out-of- centre, greenfield site significantly
outweighsthe benefitsfrom the sustainableinitiativesincludedin the scheme.
4.7.2
We also considerthat Greenhousehas overstatedthe sustainablecredentialsof
the scheme. Scott Wilson have carried out a review of the Sustainability
Assessmentsubmittedwith the weybourneRoadApplicationand have found a
number of flaws in that assessment. Their professionalopinion is that the
claim that the schemewould achievea BREEAM"Excellent"rating should be
treated with caution. we enclose a copy of scott wilson's conclusionsat
Appendix 1.
Transport by Non-Car Modes
4.7.3
Bidwells'note makes the point in respectof the Cromer RoadApplicationthat
the majority of visits to the supermarketwill be car-dependentdespite the
availabilityof publictransport(see Bidwellsparagraph3.2s). This applieswith
greater force to Weybourne Road because of its isolation from a substantial
residentialcatchment populationthat could walk or cycle to the store, a
paucity of convenient bus servicesand its much greater relative distancefrom
the town centre. This amplifies concerns that the site is an inherently
unsustainablelocation for the type of developmentproposedand which is
dependentupon large numbersof visitingcustomers.
4.7.4
Bidwellsparagraph 3.13 refers to the proposed electric bus service. The
Councilneeds to give careful considerationto the rationalefor the electric bus
serviceand the practicaldetailsof what is proposed.
4.7.5
A bus servicebetweenthe weybourneRoad Applicationsite and sheringham
town centre would be necessarybecausethe site is out-of-centre and too far
from the Primary shopping Area for customers to make the journey on foot.
As noted above,Greenhouseacknowledges
that the overwhelmingmajority of
journeys to the site would be made by car. The electric bus service is offered
as a token measureto off-set some of the many tonnes of carbon emissions
that would be releasedinto the atmosphereas a result of vehiclesmoving to
and from the site.
4.7.6
whether or not the servicewould actually achievethis objectivedependson
what is actually proposed. condition 18 proposed in Bidwells,letter of 17
Februarymakes it quite clear that the servicewould be subjectto an annual
review that would allow service reductions if demand was inadequate.
Therefore,Greenhouseis alreadysignallingthat the waitrose store might fail
to attract a sufficient number of bus passengersto make the electric bus
servicefinanciallyviable, even in the shorter term. without the electricbus
service, and in the absence of any alterations to existing commercialbus
routes to service the waitrose supermarket, the only vehicular means of
accesswould be by private car.
4.7.7
Moreover, Bidwells' letter to the county council of 5 November 2009, states
that Bidwells considersthe out-of-town location to be "largely irrelevant" in
terms of trip generation,as people will continue to make trips by car "no
matter the alternatives on offer". This attitude is extraordinary; one of the
centraltenets of the sequentialapproachto developmentis to providemeans
by which peoplecan make transportchoicesand use non-carmodeswhen cars
are the predominant mode of transport for developments at out-of-centre
locationsand endorsingthat view, Bidwellssuggeststhat g5-90o/oof trips to
foodstoresare made by car.
74
(16.16)
Appendix 16
4.8
4.7.8
On Bidwells'ownfigures,and allowingfor some peopleto walk or cycleto the
proposed Waitrose supermarket,this would indicate only around 5o/o-8o/o
travelling by bus at most. Based on Bidwells'own trip generationfigures,
therefore,only aroundsevenor eight peoplewould use the free electricbus at
a time. This does not suggesta level of use which could be supportedbeyond
the shorter term, especiallywhen for the majority of the time with only a
handfulof passengerson each run.
4.7.9
Membersappearedto be of the view that the bus would operatefor at least
the full five year period, and, most likely, in perpetuity based on demand,
consideringit would "offset the out of town location" and allow people to
"socialise". However,it is clear that little weight can be afforded to the offer of
the free electric bus service as a means of overcomingthe unsustainable
nature of the location, accessto which would very soon be confined largely to
those with accessto a car.
4.7.t0
The offer of the free electricbus serviceis acknowtedgedand duly considered
by Officers in the Repoft to Committee; without hesitation,they endorsedthe
view of the County Councilthat it does not overcomethe fundamentallack of
sustainabilitythat arisesfrom the proposedstore location.
Highways
4.8'1
Primafacie, the Bidwells'letterof 1 March2010 does not addressthe County
Council'soverridingobjectionto the WeybourneRoad Applicationscheme on
policygrounds.
4.8.2
It is noteworthythat, despiteall claimsthat the WeybourneRoadsite would be
accessible by non-car modes, the scheme would provide the absolute
maximum number of spacespermittedunder policy,highlightingthe car-borne
dependencyof the development.
4'8.3
It is clear from our detailedanalysisthat the County CouncilHighwayOfficer
had not undertaken a detailed review of all of the calculationswithin the
Transport Assessment (TA), essentially because of the County Council's
fundamentalobjection to the developmentproposalsat this location. Had a
detailedreview been undertaken,a raft of errors would have been highlighted
to Greenhouse.
4.8'4
The product of these errors is two-fold: a considerableunderestimationof
impact on the highway network and an overestimateof the performanceof the
Cromer Road/HolwayRoad roundabout. The County CouncilHighwayOfficer
consideredthat further discussionson the applicationshould not continue
given the overriding view that its very location was contrary to policy. He
identified some areas of concern and a technical note was subsequently
submitted which addressedsome of these points. However,a full transport
appraisalof the schemehas not beencarriedout.
4,8.5
The errorscan be summarisedas follows:
(a)
Lower Trip Generation- An incorrect gross floor area (GFA) has been
applied when generatingpredictedtraffic flow to the proposal. The
industry standard software TRICS user guide states that when
calculatingproposedtrips to a foodstorethe total GFAof the building(s)
should be used, which includesmezzaninelevels. This would therefore
increase the GFA for the foodstore development from 1,760 sq m to
2,024 sq m (a 15olouplift).
15
(16.17)
Appendix 16
(b)
Error in Trip Distribution - We have identified major errors in the way
in which traffic has been distributed on the highway network. The
assessmentincorrectlyequates the proportion of trips within the tofal
catchment which would arrive from the west to the proportion of trips
to the store arriving from that direction. Further, although the
distributionpurportsto be basedon retail catchment,this method has
only been appliedto the site accessjunctiOn. Beyondthat location,the
distribution appear to have been based on network traffic flows. This
"mix and match" approach is very unconventionaland, given the
location,nature and scale of development,potentiallyunderestimates
the number of trips which would use the Holway Road/CromerRoad
junction.
(c)
Errors in SeasonalAssessment- The origin of the growth factors which
have been usedto assessthe impact of the summerseasonon traffic in
the Sheringhamarea is not stated and no justificationfor them has
been provided. We suspectthat these values(15oloon a Friday; 1oloon
a Saturday) have been taken from a TA written by Mouchel to
accompanythe applicationfor the Tescostore in 2007. As part of the
work for the subsequentplanning appeal for that application,these
figures were revisedand agreed with the County Councilat 460loand
23olorespectively. These values should therefore be corrected within
the BidwellsTA, as they result in a significant over estimation of
capacityon the highwaynetwork, particularlywhen comparedwith the
work done for the CromerRoadApplication.
(d)
Errors in CapacityAssessments- Many errors have been found in the
capacityassessments
undertakenfor the three trafficjunctionsincluded
in the TA. These includetyping errors which have led to each of the
junctions being assessedincorrectlyand producingresults which are
not reflectiveof the predictedtraffic flow passingthrough them.
4.8.6
It is clear that the County Councildid not completea detailedreview of the
proposals,given the proposals clear contravention of policy in terms of
sustainableaccessibility
and location.
4.8.7
Bidwells'paragraph3.61 suggeststhat the schemewould delivera number of
highwaysimprovementsto mitigatethe impact of development.However,it is
impoftant to note that such improvementsare not currently requiredwhilst
there is no suggested condition proposed by Bidwells in relation to the
weybourne Road Applicationscheme requiring the provision of the off-site
highwayworks, which includethe variousnon-carmode improvements.
4.8.8
If these measures are ultimately secured, the proposed shared
footway/cyclewayand crossingfacility would go somewayto making the site
physicallyaccessible.However,these measuresare limited by the fact that
they stop short of reachingthe town centre; they have clearly not been given
properconsideration.
4.8.9
Further, given the location of the proposed waitrose supermarketon the
extreme western edge of sheringham, the site would be accessibleto
significantlyfewer people on foot and by bicycle when compared with the
proposedresco developmentsite on cromer Road. It is clear from Bidwells'
own submissions,that the developmentwould be car-oriented,contrary to
policyon sustainableaccessand development.
4.8.10
The county council recommendedrefusal of planning permission for six
reasons:
16
(16.18)
Appendix 16
4'8.11
4.9
the proposedGreenhousedevelopmentdoes not adequatelyprovide
for pedestrians/cyclists,
contrary to Core Strategy policyCT5;
(ii)
the proposedGreenhousedevelopmentdoes not adequatelyprovide
off-site facilities for pedestrians/cycliststo link with existing local
services,contrary to Core Strategy policy CT5;
(iii)
the proposedGreenhouse
developmentdoes not have adequateaccess
to an appropriatelevel of public transport provisionas set out in the
adopted Norfolk Bus Strategy published by the Transport Authority,
contrary to Core Strategy policy CT5;
(iv)
inadequatevisibilityis availableat the junction of the accessleadingto
the proposedFoodAcademywith the County Highwayand this would
cause danger and inconvenienceto users of the adjoining public
highway contrary to Core Strategy policy CTS;
(v)
the Greenhouseproposaldoes not incorporateadequatefacilitiesfor
the servicing of the premises and would therefore result in
manoeuvringof vehicleson the adjoininghighwayto the detriment of
highway safety contrary to Core Strategy policy CT6; and
(vi)
the Greenhouseproposalis remote from local service centre provision
conflicting with the aims of sustainabledevelopment,the need to
minimisetravel, and the ability to reduce the relianceon the private
car as representedin nationaland local policy.Contraryto PolicyT1 of
the RegionalTransportStrategy (RTS) and Policy4 of the 2nd Local
Transportptan(LTp2).
Only one of these reasonsfeatured in the repoft to Committeeon 4 March
2010, culminating in the following sole transport-basedreason for refusal
recommended by the Officers: "The site is distant from the town centre in a
location poorly served by public and non-car modes of transpoft and
consequently would fail to comply with the accessibilityrequirements of PPS4
Policy EC10.2 b. and adopted Development plan policies.,,
Employment/Investment
4.9.1
4.LO
(i)
Bidwellsconsidersthe fact that the WeybourneRoadApplicationschemewould
generate employment as a reason for approval. However, a comparable
number of jobs .would be created if the Cromer Road Application were
approved. The job creationargumentis thereforeneutralin terms of end use,
but considerationshouldalso be given to the significantinvestmentassociated
with the other elementsof the Cromer RoadApplicationschemeand the jobs
created during constructionof the related facilitiesincludingthe community
centre,replacementfire stationand housing.
Tourism
4.10.1
Bidwells paragraphs 3.5 and 3.11 suggest that the weybourne Road
Application scheme would have tourism benefits. However, there is no
evidence before the Council that the Weybourne Road Application scheme
would attract tourist visitorsto Sheringham. It comprisesa retail shop and an
educationalfacility and is unlikely to be of anything other than a cause for
minor curiosityto holidaymakers. The Nofolk FoodAcademywould, so far as
can be ascertained,be aimed at local groups and schoolsand is not intended
to be a "drop-in"destination,such as a museum.
t7
(16.19)
Appendix 16
4.L0.2
4.tt
If Membersconsiderthat the schemewould attract visitors,then proper regard
needsto be given to the impact of those visits on the highwaynetwork. This
specificassessmenthas not been carried out; the existingTA estimatestrip
generation from the Food Academy on the basis that it falls within the
"community education"sub-category,resulting in just 13 arrivals during the
highest peak period. No trips are estimatedat all on a Saturday.Given the
comments made above about the free electric bus service, it could not be
expectedthat many tourists would use that dither to reach the Greenhouse
scheme.
Education
Bidwells' paragraph 3.5 suggests that the Weybourne Road Application should be
approvedbecauseit will deliver benefitsin education. This would only be possibleif the
Notfolk FoodAcademyis commerciallyviable. However,as it is unclearwhat exactly is
being proposed, what courses would be run from the Food Academy, how much they
would cost and who the end user of the Food Academywould be, it is not possibleto
properly assesswhat, if any, benefits would come from it. Moreover,as Bidwellsadvises
that the future of the FoodAcademycannot be guaranteed (see comments regarding the
conceptat section 7 above), the claims made by Bidwellsat paragraph3.5 are clearly
unsubstantiated.
4.L2
4.13
Loss of Allotments
4.L2.1
The NationalTrust, the Norfolk Coast Partnershipand the District Council's
Conservation,Designand LandscapeManagerhave all expressedtheir concern
in writing about the need for detailsof the proposedreplacementallotmentsin
order to evaluate properly the landscapeimpact of the Weybourne Road
Applicationscheme- this informationhas not been forthcoming. Accordingly,
it is not possible to assess whether the ancillary infrastructure required to
servicethe replacementallotmentson land adjacent,such as parking areas,
pathways,buildings,lightingand landscaping,would have a detrimentaleffect
on the open characterof the area, which includespart of the Norfolk Coast
Area of OutstandingNaturalBeauty,or upon Sheringhampark.
4.72.2
Moreover, notwithstandingthe fact that replacementallotments are in the
processof being provided, insufficientattention is given in the Officer's Report
to Committee on the effect of the loss of existing allotments and the impact
that the proposeddevelopmentwould have on existingallotmentholders.
4.12'3
It should also be borne in mind that the applicantis under a contractualduty
to provide replacement allotments irrespective of whether the supermarket
proposalis approved.
Impact on Open Space
4'13.1
Bidwells'paragraph
4;1 containsan admissionthat the schemeis contraryto
North Norfolk Core Strategy policy CT1.
4.73.2
The site is at the very edge of the designatedSettlement Boundary for
sheringham and is recognisedas an "open Land Area" on the adopted
ProposalsMap. It is located within the setting of SheringhamPark and is
adjacentthe Undeveloped
Coast and an Area of OutstandingNatural Beauty.
Accordingly,there is a very strong presumptionwithin the Local Development
Framework against any development on this site and approval of the
WeybourneRoadApplicationwould be in conflictwith this presumption.
18
(16.20)
Appendix 16
4.14
4'13.3
The Greenhousedevelopmentproposalswould not enhancethe open character
or recreationaluse of the open Land which is the designationof the planning
applicationsite on the adopted North Norfolk Local DevelopmentFramework
ProposalsMap and are thus contraryto Policycr1 of the North Norfolk core
Strategy.
4.13'4
The Greenhousedevelopmentproposals,by virtue of their location, scale,
design and materials would not protect, conserve or enhance the special
qualitiesand distinctivecharacterof SheringhamPark, a Grade IIx registered
ristoric landscape,and are thus contrary to PolicyEN2 of the North Norfolk
Core Strategy.
4'13.5
We stronglyrefutethe statementsin Bidwells'paragraphs
3.58,3.59 and 4.2
that the benefitsof the schemeoutweighthis harm for the reasonsthat the
community, educational,economic and sustainabilitymeasures are grossly
overstated.
xmpact on the Norfolk coast area of outstanding natural beauty
Bidwellsoffers no justificationin its letter of 15 March 2010 for approvingthe scheme
which has potentiallysignificantimpact on an Area of OutstandingNatural Beauty. The
Greenhousedevelopment proposals, by virtue of their location, scale, design and
materials would have an adverse impact on the surroundinglandscape,includingthe
NorfolkCoastArea of OutstandingNaturalBeautythat would not be outweighedby their
benefitsand are therefore contrary to PolicyEN1of the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
4.15
4.L6
Impact on Archaeology
4.L5.t
Archaeologyis not consideredby Bidwells,despitethe clear importanceof the
issue in planning terms. Concernswere raised by Ken Hamilton, Head of
ArchaeologicalPlanning at Norfolk LandscapeArchaeology, a statutory
consulteeto the Council,in his email report dated 13 November2010.
4.t5.2
Norfolk LandscapeArchaeologyadvised the Council that the Greenhouse
developmentproposalswould involvesignificantlandscapingand other ground
disturbance which would have a serious detrimental impact on any
archaeological
remainspresentat the site. No detailsof mitigation measures
have been submitted to the local planning authority or Norfolk Landscape
Archaeologyto addressthese concerns. The local planningauthority needsto
be satisfied about the impacts and effects of the Greenhouse development
proposalson archaeological
remains.
4.15.3
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology issued the warning that 'It would be
inappropriateand prematureto grant planningpermissionin advanceof being
satisfiedabout these matters".
Conclusions
4.16.L
The WeybourneRoadApplicationschemeis promotedas an "unique concept"
which brings together developmentassociatedwith growing, preparing and
selling food in a sustainableway. However,it is clear on objective analysis
that this is not really what is being proposed. The three elements of the
conceptwould have no operational,financialor commerciallink to each other.
There is, accordingly,no reasonwhy the three uses need to be locatedon the
same site and no justificationfor their being built on a Greenfieldsite, in
designatedopen spaceadjacentan Area of OutstandingNaturalBeauty.
4.16.2
The Greenhouseconceptis little more than a mirage,a smoke screento mask
the fact that what is actually being proposed is an out-of-centre retail
19
(16.21)
Appendix 16
supermarketthat would draw trade away from the Primary Retail Area of
Sheringhamtown centreto the detrimentof the town centre.
4.16.3
The proposalto build a supermarketon the WeybourneRoadApplicationsite is
contrary to policy and should be refused. There is a site that is clearly
sequentiallypreferablefor the foodstoreat CromerRoad. If the Cromer Road
Applicationsite is ruled out for some reason,the Councilshouldfirst consider
whether there are any other sequentiallypreferablesites - this exercisehas
not been undeftaken.
4.16.4
The Greenhouseproposalswould have negative impacts on the vitality and
viabilityof Sheringhamtown centre, includinglocalconsumerchoice,the range
and quality of the convenienceretail offer and reductions in town centre
turnover from expenditure on conveniencegoods. These negative impacts
would not be mitigatedby spin-off shoppingbenefitsarising from linked trips
and would be a significantadverseimpact.
4.16'5
The only proper and legallydefensibledecisionis refusal. Sound reasonsfor
refusal were provided in the report to the Committee of 4 March 2010.
Additional reasonsfor refusal were suggestedin the letter from Alsop Verrill to
the Council dated 2 March 2010. We set out a consolidatedlist of those
reasonsin Schedule 2.
5.
THE CROMERROAD APPLICATION
5.1
Preamble
5'1'1
The Cromer RoadApplicationproposesthe demolitionof all existing buildings
on the site, with the exceptionof 7 and 11 Cromer Road, and erectionof a
ClassA1 retail food store, 5 Class A1lA3 Retail Units, 2 Class C3 Residential
Flats, and a Class DL/D2 Community Space, with associated access,
landscaping,
car parkingand servicing.
5.t.2
As the Councilis aware,previousapplicationsby Tescofor planningpermission
to build a foodstore at Cromer Road were the subject of an unsuccessful
conjoined appeal to the Secretary of State. The merits of the previous
applicationswere thoroughlyconsideredat a public inquiry and in dismissing
the appeals, the Inspector gave three very specific reasonsfor refusal - that
the size of the store proposedwould have an unacceptableimpact on retail
function, vitality and viability of Sheringhamtown centre; that the design of
the buildingwould affect the characterand appearanceof the area; and the
lack of an effective link to the wider town centre. But for those three reasons
for refusal,the Inspector'soverallconclusions
were that:
'
"the proposed development would make more efficient use of a town centre
site. It would atso provide a local convenience facitity within the town for
which there is an undisputed need. It woutd benefit those who are unable to
shop further afield and would provide competition and choice within the tocat
economy. This would also result in a reduction in car travel and emissionsand
increase self containment within the locat catchment in accordance with
emerging planning policy. There would also be benefits to the town centre,
including the provision of a free car park for the use of alt shoppers.l'
5.1.3
All of these benefits also flow from the current Cromer Road Application.
However,the current Cromer Road Applicationaddresses'andovercomesthe
Inspector'sthree reasonsfor refusaland in so doing, presentsa well designed,
policycompliantand inherentlysustainableschemethat will meet the need for
a supermarketin Sheringham.
20
(16.22)
Appendix 16
5.2
5.L.4
The merits of the cromer Road Applicationwere recognisedby the council's
officersin the recommendation
of approvalthat was given in their reportto the
4 March Committee. Nevertheless,Bidwells(on behalf of Greenhouse)and
others who are opposedto Tesco have sought to find reasonsfor refusing the
Cromer Road Applicationand to offer such purported reasonsas justification
for approval of the WeybourneRoad Application. However, by implication,
those objectors must accept that, if the reasonsfor refusing the cromer Road
Applicationare unsound,the WeybourneRoadschemecannotbe approved.
5.1.5
In the paragraphsbelow, we commend the Cromer Road Applicationto the
Counciland demonstratethat there are no sound reasonsfor refusaland only
very good reasonswhy it shouldbe approved.
The Scheme
5.2.t
The Cromer Road Applicationis part of a wider schemeof developmentand
investment in sheringham by Tesco which will replacethe existing on-site
facilities with modern-dayequivalentselsewherein sheringham. This will
provide:
(a)
a new, purposebuilt FireStation;
(b)
a new, purposebuilt CommunityCentre;
(c)
residentialdevelopmentincluding12 affordablehousingunits; and
(d)
upon completionof the land sale, €1.2 millionto be paid to the Councit,
whichcan be usedto provideadditional,off-siteaffordablehousing.
5.2.2
Planningpermissionhas already been granted for the replacementfacilities
and resco has given the council a binding commitment that the new Fire
Stationand CommunityCentrewill be built and readyfor occupationbeforethe
existing facilitiesare demolished. However,Tesco could not carry out that
developmentand this potentiallysignificantinvestmentwould be lost, if the
Cromer RoadApplicationwere to be refused.
5 .2.?
The new CommunityCentre,to be built on land at HolwayRoad, will provide
better and more flexible spacethan the facility that it will replace. The existing
facility was built about 40 years ago and was designedas a 'youth centre',
making it inherentlyunsuitablefor the wide diversityof groups that now wish
to make use of it. The buildingdoes not comply with the requirementsof the
Disability DiscriminationAct and is riddled with asbestos. It cannot be
improvedwith a decorativemake-overand redevelopmentwould be unviable.
5.2.4
Bidwellsparagraph3.43 commentsthat the site at HolwayRoadis further from
the town centre and therefore less accessiblefor people wanting to make use
of the community centre. However, the Holway Road site is a perfectly
sensible location for community facilities, which the council has endorsed
through grant of planningpermission.It is in a residentialarea inhabitedby a
high proportionof familieswith young children. It is axiomaticthat community
facilitiestailored to the needs of residentialpopulationscan and do occur in
residentialareassuchas this.
5.2.5
Any residualconcernswhich the council may have about the HolwayRoadsite
should be put aside in light of the clear,tangibleand deliverablebenefitsof a
new, improved, purpose designedand built facility. Moreover,the Cromer
Road Applicationincludesproposalsfor additionalspacefor'community uses'
which couldprovidea town centreoutreachcentrefor the community centre.
2L
(16.23)
Appendix 16
5.3
The Tesco Supermarket
Size
5.3.1
Bidwellsmake a number of criticismsabout the size of the store. Concerns
were also raised by Members. However, it should be noted that Bidwells
originallyarguedthat the cromer Road store was'too small'. MWAdealt with
this as follows;
"Bidwells in their January 2010 submissionaccept that the development of a
supermarket by Tesco stores Ltd at cromer Road woutd be viable (paragraph
4.9 of the "ss"). However they question whether the site is suitabte having
regard to the scale of the proposed development the asseftion being that it
is too small. At paragraph 4.10 of the submission it is stated that the
"proposal is designed to meet main-food shopping needs,. However at
paragraph 5.14 it is recorded that the proposal by Tesco Sfores Ltd is ,,of a
broadly acceptable scale" in terms of its gross floorcpace. However reference is
made to its unsuitability the net floorspace having been reduced to a tevet
whereby it could not effectivety ctaw-back expenditure and would provide a
predominantly top-up food shopping destination". 2e
5.3.2
Bidwellsallegedthat resco would not have the 'critical mass' necessaryand
would be too small to achievewhat it claims. It would have an insufficient
number of lines and range of goods to compete with the larger out-of-area
stores3o.
Bidwellsalso allegedthat this smallnesswould mean more relianceon
basketshoppingand competitionwith town centreshops3l.
5.3.3
when it becameclear shortly beforethe committee met on 4 March2o1o that
the net sales floor space for the two retail food stores had been defined in
differentways, and that it was the cromer Roadstore that was marginallythe
bigger of the two, Bidwellschangedtack and argued, instead,that the store
wouldbe'too big'.
5.3.4
RichardHewitt in his unsolicitedrepresentationsto the Councilof 24 March
2010 arguesthat the store would be largerthan the one which was considered
on appeal. This is simply incorrect.The council'sown Minutesof the 4 March
2010 DevelopmentControl Committee record in connectionwith the retail
foodstore proposedby the Cromer RoadApplicationthat:
"The Retail consultant referred to Appendix 1 of the report and stated that in
terms of net sales area the current proposat was 2r-22o/o smaller than the
previous appl ication".
5.3.5
The table below comparesthe gross internal floorspaceand the net retail areas
of the supermarketsproposedby the weybourneRoadApplication,the cromer
Road Applicationand the two Tesco Appeal schemes. This informationis a
matter of public record. It indicatesthat the Tesco store proposedas part of
the current cromer Road Applicationis smaller on every measure that the
previousTescoAppealschemes.
2eSRUby MWA,February
2010, paragraph2,16
30Statementof ObJection
to the planningapplicationat cromer Roadby Bidwellson behalfof CliveHay-Smith,November
2009, paragraph1.9
31Statementof objection
to the planningapplicationat Cromer Road by Bidweilson behalf of clive Hay-smith, November
2009, paragraph1.10
22
(16.24)
Appendix 16
Scheme
Grossinternal
Floorspace(mz)
Sales area using
NRPFdefinition
(m2)
Sales area using
CC definition (mz)
TheWeybourne
RoadApplication
2,OLt
1,250
927
The CromerRoad
Application
The TescoAppeal
schemes
2,to7
t,429
L,L75
2,6L832
1,800
1,500
Gross and Net floorspace
5.3.6
Bidwells paragraph3.40 and paragraph 1 of schedule 1 states that gross
floorspaceof the store is unnecessarily
large and representsa highly inefficient
use of a brown-fieldsite. This statementis incrediblehaving regardto the fact
that the weybourneRoadschemeis on Greenfieldland and is designatedopen
space and that site coverageand use at cromer Road would be significanily
better than achievedat present.
5.3.7
Along with some other objectors (including cpRE Norfolk), Greenhouse
purports to have concernsabout the ratio of gross to net floorspacewithin the
proposedresco store. Individual Members have also raised this concern,
which appears rooted in a fear that resco has deliberatelydesigned the
buildingso that the retail area can be enlargedin the future. However,the
ratio of gross to net floor space is consistent with other stores operated by
Tesco (and other major foodstore operators)and it has been designedto be as
economical.as possibleand to ensurethat every part of the store has a clear
and essentialfunction, whether it is bulk storage, office accommodationor
staff recreationspace. Indeed, unlike the appeal scheme, MWA have not
questionedthe size of the store in this respect. The appeal Inspectordid not
considerthis to be a substantiveissue.33
5.3.8
Tesco, as a very successfulretailer, attaches considerableimportance to the
objectiveof maximisingspatialefficiencyand does not designand build space
unnecessarily.The sizes quoted are the sizes that there will be, should
planningpermissionbe granted.
5.3.9
However,on this point RichardHewitt observesin his March 24 2010 postCommittee representations;
"In the Applicant's retail assessment, paragraph 4.7, having indicated their
"approximate" net sales area, the ominous words fottow that ,,the precise
configuration will be determined at the construction phase,,.
5.3.10
There is nothingsinisterin this; sensiblythe final planning of any retail store
layout, and which has to fit into the space available, will lead to minor
adjustments in salesfloorspacedependingon a variety of factors, such as the
widths of the sales countersand the spacesbetweenthem and the ancillary
parts of the store.
5.3.11
The Councilshouldalso note that, irrespectiveof which definitionof salesarea
is used, the ratio of gross to net floorspaceof the proposedresco supermarket
is broadlythe same as for the proposedWaitrosesupermarket.
32The gross external floorspace
was 2,750 sq m
33Appealdecisionby
christina Downes,proposeddevelopmentby Tescostores Limitedat cromer Road,sheringham
(APPN2620|N06l2009208)dated8 September2008, paragraph31, page
23
(16.25)
Appendix 16
Policy ECS
5.3.12
Policy EC5, which is consideredin detail in section 3 of "weybourne Road
Applicationscheme" above, applies to the cromer Road Applicationin the
same way as it does to the weybourne RoadApplication. The cromer Road
Applicationscheme accords with this policy, contrary to what is said by
Bidwellsat paragraph3.34 because;
(a)
a need exists within the catchment area for the scale and type of
developmentproposed;
(b)
the development site is an accessible,Brownfield, edge-of-centresite
which can and will be well-connectedwith the core Retail Area of
Sheringham.No sequentiallypreferablesite is available,suitable and
viable (starting with the town centre, edge-of-centre sites and then
out-of-centre locations);
(c)
the proposed developmentwould not have a significant adverse effect
on the vitality and viability of existingtown centres or nearby Service
Villagesor CoastalSeruiceVillages;and
(d)
the proposeddevelopmentwould be accessibleby a choiceof meansof
transport,includingpublictransport,walking,cyclingand the car.
Se q u en t i a I Assessrnent
5.3.13
The appealInspectorthat consideredTesco'spreviousapplicationin relationto
Cromer Roadwas satisfiedthat there are no sequentiallypreferablesites to the
CromerRoadSite for a supermarketin Sheringhamthat are available,suitable
and viable.
5.3.14
Richard Hewitt suggests that considerationshould be given to the central
Garagesite as a suitablelocationfor a retail-leddevelopment. This site, also
referred to as 'site adjacent clock rower' is proposedas a Retail opportunity
site ("RoS") in the draft site specificproposalsplan ("ssp,'), which if adopted
followingan Examinationin public in July 2010, would form part of the Local
DevelopmentFramework. However,the CentralGaragesSite is not considered
suitable for a supermarket. It would be designated for a mixed-use
developmentof shops, commercialand community uses with potential for
residentialdevelopmentabove groundfloors. It was specificallyconsideredby
the Tesco appeal Inspector, who did not consider it a suitable alternative
locationfor a supermarketof the size and quality required in sheringham,
which unlikethe other North Norfolktowns of Cromerand Holt does not have a
supermarket, and to achieve claw-backof trade currently being lost to stores
in and aroundNorwich,Fakenham,Northwalshamand ersewhere.
5.3.15
The draft ssP also acknowledgesthat the central Garage site "is a complex
site becauseof the multiplicityof uses and ownershipsinvolved,'. It is also
"recognisedthat a single phase redevelopmentof the site may prove difficult
to achieve".
Impact
5.3.16
we have respondedto claims made by Bidwells(paragraphs3.17 and a.3) by
way of referenceto the independentadvice given to the council by MWA and
the advicewhich.officersgave to Memberson 4 March2010 as recordedin the
Minutes.If the co-op store on church street was to close, sheringhamtown
centre would have three general purpose conveniencestores (Budgensand
Nobby'son church street and the sainsbury'sLocalon High street), as well as
24
(16.26)
Appendix 16
a range of specialistfood shops,which would complementthe proposedTesco
store on CromerRoad,and which aloneamongstthis diversityof retail facilities
would addressthe 'main food' shoppingneeds of people in the Sheringham
area. The town centre would have a wider range of shops and stores selling
different types of conveniencegoods in different ways to meet the needs of a
wider rangeof shoppersthan is the casenow.
5'3.L7
Bidwellsalleges at paragraphs3.16 and 3.24 that the Cromer Road store
would be a 'one-stopshop'. Some Membersalso shared this concern. The
fear is that the small independentunits proposedby the scheme would, in
combination with the Tesco store, compete with the rest of the town centre.
This is certainly not Tesco's intention. The proposed retail foodstore, whilst
large enough to provide a sound local counter attraction to the stores in
Cromer, Norwichand elsewherethat are used by so many Sheringhamarea
shoppers,would not be able to sell more than a small range of the most basic
ancillarynon-foodlines.
5.3.18
The Minutesof the committee meeting on 4 March2010, recordthau
"The Retail Consultant referred to the figures given in Appendix 1 to the report
and in Tesco's design and access statement. He stated that conditions could
be imposed which could restrict the area of both convenience and comparison
goods. Such conditions would be easier to enforce if basedon the Competition
Commission's definition. He considered that the difference in floor space
referred to by Counciltor Mrs McGoun retated to areas which were not within
the store,'.34
5'3'19
Bidwellsasseftsat paragraph3.15 that the Cromer Road store would be less
able to achieveclaw-back. This statement is wholly without logic or reason
and is contraryto the independentadvicegiven by MWAto the Council.
Impact on planned puhtic and private investment
5'3.20
5.4
No alternativeproposalsfor the use of this site are before the Council. It
would be perversefor the Councilto refuse permission(having regard to Core
Strategy EC5 and PPS4 ECIO) if permission for this reason. Refer also to
Inspector'scommentsthat this is the best site, sequentially,for a food store in
Sheringham.
The Independent Units
5'4'1
Bidwellsexpressesconcernabout the implicationsof the independentunits in
respectof the sequentialapproachto developmentat paragraphs3.30, 3.31,
3.33 and appendix1, paragraph2.
5'4'2
Bidwellsalso allegesthat the units will undermineinvestmentin the primary
ShoppingArea (appendix1, paragraph3) and allegethat existingvacant units
can perhapsprovidefor the needsof new retail enterprises(paragraph3.32).
5.4.3
MWAis clearthat:
"we of course recognise that the supermarket and the proposed unit shops
would provide a degree of overtap with services and goods provided within the
centre. This is an inevitable consequenceof seeking to enhance the range and
quality of shopping facitities for residentsand visitors. As paragraph
7.2g of the
Practice Guidance states, it is inevitabte that new retait devetopment (in
3aNorth NorfolkDistrict
council Minutesof the specialmeetingof the
Developmentcontrol committee,4 March2010, page6
25
(16.27)
Appendix 16
whatever location) will have some impact on the turnover of existing centres
within the catchment area,'.3s
"In any event we accept that the provision of four units between the store
entrance and station Road woutd form part of the town centre (atthough not
the core Retail Area) and coupted with the proposed tayout woutd assist in
encouraging linked shopping and other trips. In this respect we conclude that
the current proposat addresses the criticisms raised by the Inspector in
paragraph 22 of her Decision Letter of g September 20ag',36
5.4.4
MWAleft the DevelopmentControlin no doubt about the retail planningmerits
of the smallunits:
"The Retail Consultant stated that he had considered the smail retait units
in
terms of potential turnover. They were separate units which were not retated
to Tesco. He understood that resco had given an undertaking that woutd
prevent the company running its businesswithin those units,
but irrespective
of this, the Core Strategy was supportive of additionat retait units within
sheringham. This element of the proposal comptied with the core strategy in
terms of the sequential approach and scale. The potential for these units to be
occupied by comparison retailers had been tested. There was a substantiat
need for retail floor space within the town. The units would function as paft
of
the town centre and offset the negative aspectsof the proposal,,.r7
5.4.5
conditions can be imposed to restrict the use of the units, so addressing
Bidwellsparagraph3.28. MWAexplainedto the committee on 4 March2010
that:
" the small retait units would be in Tesco'scontrol. llowever, the company had
offered to enter into a tegat agreement that the units would not be operated
by
Tesco. Tesco had committed itself to build the units and they woutd
be
available when the store opened. It coutd be possibtefor the Council to set
the
rents of the units, provided Tescowoutd agree to this,. 38
5.5
5.4.6
Tescohas submitteda draft conditionto the Councilwhich would provide
that
none of the units shall be used in conjunctionwith or be used ancillary
to the
retail supermarket. The draft condition would also require Tesco
to agree
servicingand parking arrangementsfor the units with the Councilto
ensure
that they are adequatery provided for and are capabre of operating
independentlyof resco. As an additionalmeasure, in responseto
concerns
raisedby Membersduring the committee meetingon 4 March,Tescowould
be
willing to enter into a legal agreementwith the Councilto subsidisethe
rent of
the units to ensurethat they are viableand add to the vitality and vibrancy
of
sheringhamtown centre and performin their role as a draw for peoplewalking
betweenthe store and Station Road.
5.4.7
Notwithstanding officers' advice about the importance of the units
to good
design,Tescointendsto amend the planningapplicationto remove
two of the
independentunits from the scheme.
Design
3ssRU by MWA,
February2010, paragraph2,26
36sRU by
MWA,February2010, paragraph2.32
37North Norfolk
Districtcouncil Minutesof the specialmeetingof the Development
control committee,4 Marchzo1o, page6
38North Norfolk
Districtcouncil Minutesof the specialmeetingof the Development
control committee,4 March zo1o, page7
26
(16.28)
Appendix 16
Bidwells'paragraph3.38 and appendix1, paragraph9 state that the designdoes not have
regard to the local context or characterof the town, contrary to Policy EN4. No objective
reasons are given for this statement. The statement is contrary to the advice of officers
both prior to and during the committeemeeting,includingthe Conservation,Designand
LandscapeManager(conservationand Design)who statedthat:
"design was a matter of opinion. He stated that design rssues inctuded not only
architectural style but atsolayout and retationship with the town and the town centre. He
referred to his comments on design and tandscapein the report. He considered that
the
proposed Cromer Road scheme was wetl retated to the overall buitt form
of Sheringham.
The architect had carried out a proper assessmentof the impact of the proposalon the
town centre in terms of built form. He stated that the store woutd be an attraction in
terms of Cromer Road with the town centre as the other attraction, Iinked by the
walkway. The store had been brought closer to Station Roadand he considered that the
proposal worked well from that perspective. He stated that supermarkets
were difficult to
design and referred to the elements neededfor inclusionin their design. He considered
that in the case of the Cromer Roadproposal, the architects had made every effort to
make the front of the store facing the raitway interesting, and to create axractive
elevations on the remaining sides. He considered that both the Cromer Road
and
Weybourne Road schemeswere excellent, atthough in the caseof Weybourne Roadthere
were issuesin respectof impact on the edge of town, not only in respectof retait but
atso
in landscape terms. Whitst it would be difficult to justifiy refusal in terms of tandscape
impact, this was an issue which coutd be taken into account. He considered that in terms
of design, good planning and urban planning the Cromer Road site was the preferable
scheme".se
5.6
Pedestrian Link and rerationship with the Town centre
5.6.1
Bidwellsat paragraphs3.20, 3.22, 3.26 and appendix !, paragraph4
introducesmischievousand baselessconcernsabout the characterand efficacy
of the proposedpedestrianlink and about the demolition of buildingsin or
adjacentto the Conservation
Area.
5'6'2
The Council'sConservation,Designand LandscapeManager(Conservation
and
Design) opined about the proposedpedestrianlink that "There woutd be a
good link into the town centre for those watking to and from the
store,,4o.
NorfolkCountyCouncilcommentedthat;
"The proposal incorporates a greatly improved pedestrian link from the site to
Station Road, the Primary Shopping Area and the transport interchange,
compared with the previous application',4|.
5.6.3
MWAadvisedthe Councilthat:
"In our view the scheme proposed at cromer Road given the revised design,
siting and proposed linkages would ensure that it woutd function as an edge-ofcentre location. It lies within 300 metres of the core Retail Area and the
changes which are now proposed to siting of the car park, the positioning of the
store entrance with its greater proximity to station Road, the greater degree of
intervisibility between station Road and the supermarket ind the proposed
pedestrian link will in our view offer the maximum potentiat for linked
shopping
and other trips to and from the town centre. In this regard we do not regard
3eNorth NorfolkDlstrict
council Minutesof the speclalmeetingof the Developmentcontrol committee, 4
March2010, pages7
and 8
a0Internalplanning
appricationconsurtation
responsefrom 5 october 2009
41Planningapplication
consultationresponsefrom the Directorof Environment,Transportand Development,
Norfolkcounty
Councilto North NorfolkDistrictCouncil19 OctoberZOO9
27
(16.29)
Appendix 16
the railway line as a significant obstacle (given its tack of use) and note that
users of the public car park on Station Roadhave no difficutty traversing it. We
believe that the scheme is therefore capable of achieving not only the necessary
degree of physical linkage but woutd also achieve the desired functional tinkage
as emphasised in pangraph 6.7 of the practice Guidance. In our view a
supermarket of the scale, design and siting now proposed woutd provide a
strong complementary attraction which would encourage shoppers and others
within the town centre to make a visit on foot. In addition the range and size of
sheringham will in our opinion provide a sufficientty attractive and
complementary attraction to encourage shoppers to the supermarket to visit
the town centre during the same trinu.42
5.6.4
All reasonablecommentatorsconsiderthat the pedestrianlink proposedas
part of the planning applicationwill be attractive, safe and effective. However,
Tescocan (and would be willing to) deliveran even wider pedestrianlink as it
controls property at 57-73 station Road, and so could widen the pedestrian
link towards its western end and lay it out as'public realm, with appropriate
hard and soft landscaping. The drawings at Appendix 2 from the project
architects,WilkinsonEyre, indicatetwo optionsfor how this would be achieved.
Tesco is willing to offer a planning obligation to the council in the form
attachedat Appendix 3 to deliverthe pedestrianlink.
5.6.5
Bidwellsparagraphs3.23 and 3.26 claim that the arrangementof the scheme,
with the store located at the closest edge of the site to the town centre, will
discouragelinked trips. It should be noted that this arrangementis in direct
responseto the Inspector's findings, which were that the provision of a car
park between the store and town centre would discouragelinked trips. The
council also previously raised concern that linked trips would not be
encouragedif people had to cross the car park betweenthe store and the town
centre. To now adopt the opposite view would be, at best, inconsistentwith
the Council'spreviouslyheld opinion,arguedat the appealinquiry.
5.6.6
Bidwellsparagraph3.26 makes out that havingto crossthe railwayline will be
a negative factor in considering the cromer Road scheme. Apart from the
obvious point that in order to get to the core RetailArea from the weybourne
Road site one would need to walk nearly 9oo metres before getting to the
Station Roadend of the Cromer Roadschemepedestrianlink before crossing
the railwayline, MWAconfirm:
"we do not regard the raitway line as a significant obstacte (given its tack of
use) and note that the users of the public car park on station Road have no
difficulty travetsing if'. 4s
5.6.7
5.7
The runningof trains acrossthe level crossingis not a frequentevent, and this
is the case for anyone parking in the town centre'sexisting main car park at
station Road. This car park clearly providesvery good tinkage with town
centre shops and serves the town centre well. The cromer Road site would be
similarly located in terms of distanceand there is no reason to considerit
would fu nction differenfly.
Sustainability
5.7.r
The council'ssustainabilityTeam advisedthe officers about the cromer Road
Applicationschemethat{ the applicationcomplieswith policyEN6basedon the
42SRUby MwA, February
2O1oparagraph2.26
43sRU by MWA,February
2010, paragraph2.26
4 Internalplanning
appricationconsurtation
responsefrom 16 october 2oo9
28
(16.30)
Appendix 16
informationcontainedwithin the Designand AccessStatement,Environmental
SustainabilityStatement and Addendumto the Energy Statement submitted
with the CromerRoadApplication.
5.8
5.9
5.7.2
Officersare contentthat CO2emissionsfrom the store will be 18% lessthan a
comparableschemebuilt to Part L of the current BuildingRegulations.They
are also satisfiedthat, through a combinationof good designand appropriate
use of technologyand materials,the primary energy demand of the store will
be reducedby about 15olo.
5-7.3
However,arguablythe most sustainablefeature of the scheme,and the one
that truly sets it apaft from the Weybourne Road Application scheme is, its
location. The schememakes use of previouslydevelopedbrownfieldland that
is in need of regeneration.It is within the town centre and, as set out above,
is closeenoughto the PrimaryShoppingArea to encouragecustomersto make
journeys betweenthe store and other destinationsby foot.
Highways
5.8.1
Bidwellsparagraph3.37 and appendix1, paragraphs7 and 8 commentson the
acceptabilityof the CromerRoadApplicationin terms of its potentialimpacton
the highwaynetwork.
5.8.2
Bidwellsseeksto assertthat the CromerRoadApplicationschemewould cause
unequivocalharm to highway safety and free flow of traffic. This is wholly
contraryto the advice of the County Council,which has responsibilityfor the
road networkin this area, and is contraryto the findingsof the Inspectorwhen
this matter was examinedin through detail at the publicinquiry in July 2008.
5'8'3
The County Council Highway Officer, via the report to Committee, clearly
states that the highway assessment work has been subjected to rigorous
scrutiny, is robust and demonstratesthat the highway network will function
satisfactorily.
5'8.4
To suggestthat the parking provisionat the Cromer Road schemeis contrary
to policy is wholly inappropriate. This provision has been acceptedby Officers
and the levelwholly accordswith both the permittedmaximum level contained
within policy, and with the need to strike a balance between provision for
accessby car and the aim of discouragingunnecessary
iourneys by car.
Affordable Housing
5'9'1
Bidwellsparagraphs
3.35,3.36 and appendixl paragraphs5 and 6 are critical
of the Cromer RoadApplicationschemebecauseit would result in the loss of
existing residentialaccommodation. Similar concerns are also raised by
RichardHewitt. However,if the developmentproceeds,the Councilwill receive
a EL.2 million payment which it can use to invest in new affordablehomes.
The existing housing on site, at Lockerbie Flats, is of obsolete standard and
poor condition; its loss has never been perceived as a cause of harm
to
objective commentators.
5.9.2
The Councilis awarethat Tescooriginallyagreedto procurethe constructionof
replacementaffordabledwellingson land at WestonTerraceGardens. It was
later agreed that a payment of E!.2 million pounds in lieu of replacement
dwellingswas a more appropriatemeans of compensatingfor the loss of the
dwellingsfrom the CromerRoadsite.
5'9'3
The matter of the commutedsum to remedythe loss of affordablehousingon
the Cromer Road site instead of building replacements at Weston Terrace
29
(16.31)
Appendix 16
Gardenswas the subject of substantivereportsto the Council'sCabinet
on t7
october 2006 and 3 March 200g. copies of the officers,reports and Minutes
of
both of those meetingsare attachedfor informationat Appendix 4,
5.9.4
5.9.5
Paragraph 2'3 of the 3 March 2008 report sets out officers' advice
that the
commutedsum would have the followingbenefits:
(a)
it would enable the council to take a more flexible approach in the
context both of location and timing to applying the benefit of the
disposalof the site and the re-provisionof AffordabreHousing;
(b)
the council would be able to focus on the current profile of housing
need in supporting new affordabrehousing, rather than rerying on
provisionbasedupon historicaldata;
(c)
the difficultiesassociatedwith accessingthe Weston Terrace site would
no longerbe relevant.
It is also clear from the Report to cabinet on t7 october 2006
that officerc
consider:
"Th"
within the Council,s forward
housing programme shoutd be considered a orioritv for the future
use of this
receipt."
5.10
5.11
5.9.6
It is therefore clear that the Council intends to use the contribution
for the
provisionof affordablehousingwhether or not it is
contractuallyobliged to
Tescoto do so.
5.9.7
In addition, a minimum of L2 affordablehousing units will arise
at Holway
Roadfurther to the grant of outline planningpermissionfor that
one hectare
site to Tesco in 2008. Moreover,Tesco is willing to restrict occupation
of the
two flats proposed as part of the cromer Road Application
scheme to
affordablehousing.
Trees
5.10.1
Bidwellsmakes the point (at paragraph3.39 and appendix paragraph
1
10)
that the loss of two protected trees would result in unacceptable
harm to the
townscapeand local amenity and which might in itself merit
a reason for
refusal.
5.10.2
Core Strategy policiesEN2 and EN4do not prohibitthe loss of
trees. The loss
of trees is adequatelycompensatedfor by new planting.
Conclusions
5.11.1
The cromer Road Application,if approved,will deliver significant
investment
into Sheringhamtown centre. It will delivera supermarketfor
which there is
an identifiedand pressinglocalneedand it will do so in a way
which makesthe
best use of previousrydevelopedland closestto the primary
shoppingArea.
5.11.2
The cromer Road scheme will also deliver important
new facilities for
sheringham: a new fire station, a new community centre,
and afFordabre
housing. Theseare tangiblebenefitsfor whichthere is an
identifiedneed.
5.11.3
A new supermarket will inevitably have some impact on
sheringham town
centre. It is for this reasonthat local and nationai policy requires
new retail
developmentto be located as close to the existing centre
as possible- so that
30
(16.32)
Appendix 16
trade remains in the town centre and shoppers can visit other shops and
facilitieswithin the town centreat the same time as buyingtheir groceries.
5'11'4
Independentexperts considerthat the Cromer Road Applicationscheme is
neithertoo large that it will undermineexistingshops nor too small that it will
fail to provide people with a choice over stores in and around towns some
distance away from Sheringham. They also consider that the design and
layout of the store is the best able to minimiseany impact on the town centre
and to encouragepeopreto make rinkedtrips within the centre.
5'11'5
Overall, the Cromer Road Application scheme wiil deliver benefits for
Sheringhamin a way which complieswith planningpolicy.
5'11'6
We have sought to providethe Councilwith a full responseto the contentions
made by those opposedto the Cromer RoadApplication. Tescohas taken all
reasonablestepsto respondto the Counciland the localcommunityand devise
a scheme which addressesconcerns raised in the part. It is clear from the
advice given by Officersthe Council'sexternal consuttationsand the County
council that when consideringand applying planning law and appropriate
nationaland local planningpolicies,the Councilshouldfollow clear adviceand
suppott the scheme which is most compliant. There is absolutelyno doubt
that the only reasonableand rational decisionfor the Councilto take is to
support and approvethe Cromer RoadApplicationand refusethe Weybourne
RoadApplication.
5'7t'7
A table balancingthe key issuesfor and againstthe two schemesis set out in
the Schedule attached.
31
(16.33)
Appendix 16
SCHEDULE1
TABLE OF KEY ISSUES
Issue
Weybourne Road
Cromer Road
The Scheme
Foodstore
Foodstore
FoodAcademy
Five AI/A2/A3 units - to be
reducedto three units
Communityspace
Town centreparking
Two residentialflats
Location
Out of Centre, 1000m from pSA
Edge of Centre, 150 m from pSA
Related Benefits
Replacement
allotments
New Fire Station
New CommunityCentre
ResidentialDevelopment
includingAffordableHousing
Releaseof fundsto NNDC
including81.2 m for off-site
affordablehousing
Size of Store
L,760 'r12gross and 927 mz net ftoorspace 2,100 mz grossand 1,175mz
net floorspace
Sequential
assessment
Sequentiallypreferablesites exist at
CromerRoadand HolwayRoad
There are no sequentially
preferablesites
Impact
The store will have an impacton tfre town
centreand will be significanUylessable to
mitigatethat impactthrough linkedtrips
becauseof the distancefrom the pSA
The store will have an impact on
the town centre,but this will be
mitigated by linked trips between
the store and the PSA
Sustainability
CO2 emissionswill be reducedas a result
of renewableand low carbonenergy
technology,but insufficientto overcome
the inherentlyunsustainablenatureof the
locationfor the development
CO2 emissionswill be reducedby
18o/ocomparedto Part L of
current BuildingRegulations
Highways
Doesnot complywitn ppef S as it invotves Complies with PPG13in that it
development
in an edge-of-town,
out-ofinvolves developmentin a town
centrelocation
centre
Environment
Involvesdevelopmentof a Greerfield site
Makesuse of previously
in designatedopen spaceand will impact
developed,Brownfieldland
on Area of OutstandingNaturalBeautyand
the setting of a Grade IIx listed historic
Involveslossof some existing
park
trees, whichwill be replaced
Archaeology
Will impactof archaeology
No impact
33
(16.34)