Appendix 20
Your ref:
Our ref:
dd:
df:
e:
Date:
PLA/20090818
SS45800002
01603 229345
01603 767223
james.alflatt@bidwells.co.uk
20 August 2010
Mr G Lyon
Senior Planning Officer
North Norfolk District Council
Council Offices
Holt Road
Cromer
Norfolk
NR27 9EN
16 Upper King Street
Norwich
Norfolk NR3 1HA
t: 01603 763939
f: 01603 763899
bidwells.co.uk
By Email & Post
Dear Mr Lyon
Planning Application Reference No. PLA/20090818 (amended submission)
Tesco Stores Limited, Erection of A1 (Retail Supermarket), 2 Class A1/A3 Retail Units, 2 Flats and
Class D1/D2 Community Space with associated access, Landscaping, Car Parking & Servicing
Arrangements, Land at Cromer Road, Sheringham
We write further to our earlier correspondence dated 28 September 2009 and 13 November 2009, raising
significant objections on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project to the application submitted by Tesco
Stores Limited. We understand that, on 9 July 2010, the agents for the above application submitted
amendments to application (PLA/20090818) which sought to address issues raised by committee members on
4 March 2010.
Essentially, we understand that the proposed amendments are as follows:
Reduced retail floorspace of the overall scheme by the removal of the two independent retail units
proposed on the northern side of the piazza, replaced with public space/public art.
Conversion of the independent retail unit fronting Cromer Road to a community space
Two residential flats will become 'affordable homes'
The applicant has now secured control of the land necessary to deliver a wider pedestrian link
between the site and Station Road.
On the basis of the above, we consider that the proposed amendments do not remedy the objections we
previously submitted and therefore these remain valid. For completeness, we attach a further copy of the
planning objections submitted in November 2009. The following objections are additional matters which we
would raise in response to the latest amendments which have been submitted.
Reduction of Retail Floorspace
Whilst it is acknowledged that the amended application has reduced the number of independent retail units
from five down to two, the overall size of the retail store remains unchanged. As the following table indicates,
even if the floorspace requirements of the two independent units are excluded from the calculations, the Gross
External Area (GEA) of the store remains larger than that which was dismissed by a Government Inspector in
September 2008 who concluded the identifiable harm that a store of this size would have upon the 'vitality,
viability and retail function of Sheringham town centre'.
EG Property Advisor of the Year 2009 – Eastern Region
Bidwells is trading name of Bidwells LLP, a limited liability partnership,
registered in England and Wales with number OC344553.
Registered office: Bidwell House Trumpington Road Cambridge CB2 9LD
A list of members is available for inspection at the above address
(20.1)
Appendix 20
Planning Application Reference PLA/20090818
20 August 2010
Page 2
Tesco Application
20070217PF*
Registration Date of Application
Tesco Application
PLA/20090818
1 February 2007
17 August 2009
Gross External Area (Store)
2,760 sqm
2,873 sqm
Net Sales Area (CC definition)
1,500 sqm
1,175 sqm
Total Gross Floorspace sqm
2,760 sqm
2,873 sqm**
* This application was subsequently dismissed at appeal.
** The Total Gross Floorspace excludes the remaining two independent units. On the basis that the
previous five units provided a gross floorspace of 316sqm, in the absence of more detailed information
on the floorspace of each individual independent unit, it is reasonable to assume, the remaining two
units will together proportionately provide a gross floorspace in the region of 126sqm. This will result
in a revised total gross retail floorspace for the scheme of 2,999sqm.
Provision of Housing
It is our understanding after reviewing the proposed amendments that the two flats adjacent to Cromer Road
will now be designated as 'affordable homes'. We would request further clarification on the 'affordable' aspect
of these units, whether this refers to the affordability of these units on the private market or indeed whether
they are to be housing stock managed by the Council or a Housing Association. In addition, the amended
plans do not appear to show any outdoor amenity area or parking provision associated with the two flats.
Loss of Affordable Housing
In the event that these units are proposed to be social housing, the provision of 2 units by this scheme will not
compensate for the loss of 11 social units resulting from the demolition of Lockerbie Flats if this scheme is
approved. At the 4 March meeting, Committee members took the view that on this basis the Cromer Road
scheme could not be assessed favourably against the wider impact considerations of Policy EC10.2 of PPS4.
This includes the harmful impacts the proposals would cause to social inclusion, given that the proposal will
result in the net loss of affordable housing units in an area of acute affordable housing shortage with over 500
people currently on the housing waiting list in Sheringham.
With this in mind, there is no further offsite provision of affordable housing proposed by this scheme to meet
the resultant shortfall. In correspondence to the Council on the 2 March 2010, the applicant's agent suggested
that the residential development at Holway Road would produce a 'minimum of 12 affordable housing units of a
quality and quantity superior to the Lockerbie Flats.' As previously stated, the affordable housing provision at
Holway Road in no way offsets the net loss from the Cromer Road Site, as the 12 units to be provided by the
Holway Road scheme only meets the Council's policy requirement to deliver a percentage of affordable
housing from the private market housing which has already been consented.
In addition, the applicant's agent in correspondence dated 2 March 2010 referred to a 'significant financial
contribution which is intended to be used towards the provision of affordable housing within the administrative
area of the Council'. It is our understanding that the financial contribution of £1.2million would be payable to the
District Council if the Cromer Road application is approved and the sale of the site to Tesco goes ahead, to
reflect the loss of Lockerbie Flats. However it has now been publicly confirmed by the Council that this money
will not be ring-fenced for a specific purpose (i.e. affordable housing) but it will be for the Council to determine
how this money is spent within the wider District. This does not provide any certainty that this money will be reinvested in affordable housing for Sheringham, which again indicates the Cromer Road scheme, will lead to a
net loss of affordable housing in the town. Similarly it is also suggested that the £1.2 million is the appropriate
land consideration payable to the District Council as landowner. This is supported by correspondence from the
District Valuer in January 2008, which makes no reference to this value reflecting the need to offset the loss of
(20.2)
Appendix 20
Planning Application Reference PLA/20090818
20 August 2010
Page 3
affordable housing from this site. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that this financial contribution of £1.2
million is the land value and given that the Council will not necessarily commit this contribution to affordable
housing, we would suggest that this financial sum has no materiality towards the loss of affordable housing
from this site.
Scope to Widen Pedestrian Link
With reference to page 3 of the Alsop Verrill letter dated 9 July 2010, suggestion is made that "Tesco has now
secured control of the land necessary to deliver a wider pedestrian link between the site and Station Road".
After reviewing the proposed amendments, the applicant is not proposing any changes to the area currently
occupied by 57-73 Station Road. For this reason, we would suggest that members of the committee cannot
apply any material weight to this aspect as the proposals which form part of this amended application do not
include a wider pedestrian link from the site to Station Road. As indicated in Alsop Verrill's letter, these
changes would potentially require the submission of a further application which would need to be considered
on its own merits at the appropriate time. There is no guarantee such a proposal would be approved to allow
the widening of the pedestrian link to occur.
Therefore our objections remain that in view of the poor pedestrian linkages proposed by this application, the
Cromer Road site is not sequentially preferable when assessed against Policy EC15.1c and the definition of
edge-of-centre contained within PPS4. The proposal is unlikely to result in significant numbers of linked trips to
off-set the impacts of trade diversion. With reference to the Officer's report prepared for the 4 March
committee, a number of consultees including the Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
considered the pedestrian link to lack ‘permeability’ and the Council’s Community Safety Manager considered
it to have a combination of ‘attracting factors’ which would unfortunately lead to an increase in criminal activity
in this area. We consider that these issues have still not been resolved by these amendments.
During the 4 March committee, members also noted that the pedestrian link from the store car park involves a
longer walk than that from the store itself. Members took the view that this would make it more likely that
customers arriving by car would not use the pedestrian link for trips to town centre shops, especially given the
potential for comparison shopping at the Cromer Road site. Instead they would limit their shopping trip to only
the Cromer Road site. This would support the argument identified by the Government Inspector in dismissing
previous applications on this site in 2008 of the identifiable harm this would have upon the vitality, viability and
retail function of Sheringham town centre. From the evidence that has been provided with this application and
its amendments, there is nothing to suggest that this identifiable harm has been adequately resolved.
Following the submission of these further amendments to application 20090818, we note that the Council has
registered a new application from Tesco Stores Limited (NNDC ref PLA/20100920) which principally provides a
duplication of the amended 2009 application with the exception of an extension to the planning application
boundary which now includes the proposed demolition required to widen the pedestrian link from the
application site to Station Road. Whilst further objections will be raised separately to this new application, the
effect of demolition adjacent to, and upon the setting of, the Sheringham Conservation Area needs to be
thoroughly assessed. In addition, the proposals, still result in a narrowing of the pedestrian link due to other
building constraints as it connects with Station Road which still raises concern about the functional benefit this
link provides to the town centre.
Loss of Protected Trees
In arriving at their decision on 4 March, members considered the harm to the townscape and local amenity of
the town caused by the loss of two protected trees behind no 7 Cromer Road which would be contrary to
Development Plan Policies EN2 and EN4 of the Core Strategy. The Cromer Road scheme as amended has
not responded to this issue and therefore, if permitted, would result in the felling of two protected trees. The
scheme therefore does not seek to protect and conserve the distinctive landscape features provided by these
trees or enhance their function as ecological corridors for dispersal of wildlife within the local area.
(20.3)
Appendix 20
Planning Application Reference PLA/20090818
20 August 2010
Page 4
Concluding Remarks
In summary, we consider that the latest Tesco amendments do not adequately address the overarching
importance of harm the Inspector felt the previous application(s) would cause which resulted in the appeal
being dismissed in September 2008. We would suggest, as the enclosed objections indicate, that the revised
proposals will still result in identifiable harm to the 'vitality, viability and retail function of Sheringham town
centre'. The proposals will have adverse effects upon the character and appearance of the area, provide
ineffective functional pedestrian linkages to the wider town centre which are contrary to national planning
policy, give rise to increased flood risk and drainage problems within the locality, and further give rise to the
loss of occupied social rented accommodation at a time of unprecedented need. In addition uncertainties
surround the claims stated within the application in respect to the anticipated highway impact and overall
sustainability of the proposed development.
We consider that the objections outlined above and in the enclosed statement sufficiently demonstrate the
identifiable harm the proposed development would have in this specific site location, which is unsuitable for the
proposed development. For these reasons it is reasonable and necessary for the Local Planning Authority to
consider alternative locations for a similar development.
Please can you acknowledge receipt of this correspondence which we hope will be useful in presenting the
material changes which have occurred to the above application since the 4 March as the committee proceed to
amplify and ratify the reasons for reaching their previous decision.
Yours sincerely
James Alflatt MRTPI AIEMA
Principal Planner
Copy: Steve Oxenham, North Norfolk District Council
Roger Howe, North Norfolk District Council
Clive Hay-Smith, Greenhouse Community Project
Beverley Firth, Mills & Reeve
Robin Purchas QC
Enc:
NNDC Ref PLA/20090818 Statement of Objection Report
(20.4)