Appendix 21
Statement of Objection to Planning Application Ref PF/10/0920
Submitted on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project
Land at Cromer Road, Sheringham
15 September 2010
(21.1)
Appendix 21
Quality Assurance
1
PF/10/0920 Statement of Objection on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project
(21.2)
Appendix 21
Quality Assurance
Site name:
Land at Cromer Road, Sheringham
Client name:
Mr Hay-Smith, Greenhouse Community Project
Type of report: Statement of Objection
Version:
1.1
Prepared by:
James Alflatt MRTPI AIEMA
Date:
15 September 2010
Signed
Date
15 September 2010
Reviewed by:
Paul Clarke MRTPI
Signed
Date
15 September 2010
2
PF/10/0920 Statement of Objection on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project
(21.3)
Appendix 21
Table of Contents
1
APPLICATION PF/10/0920...............................................................................................1
2
EFFECT UPON THE VITALITY & VIABILITY OF SHERINGHAM TOWN CENTRE ........3
Sequential Issues .............................................................................................................. 3
Retail Impact...................................................................................................................... 4
Compliance with PPS 4 Wider Impact Tests...................................................................... 5
3
TRANSPORT & TRAFFIC ................................................................................................7
Proposed Site Access/Junction Arrangements .................................................................. 7
Junction Capacity .............................................................................................................. 8
Validity of Traffic Surveys .................................................................................................. 8
Car Parking ....................................................................................................................... 9
Pedestrian Access........................................................................................................... 10
Servicing.......................................................................................................................... 10
4
LOSS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING..............................................................................11
5
LOSS OF TREES ...........................................................................................................12
6
S106 MATTERS .............................................................................................................13
7
CONCLUDING REMARKS .............................................................................................14
3
PF/10/0920 Statement of Objection on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project
(21.4)
Appendix 21
1
APPLICATION PF/10/0920
1.1
We write further to our earlier correspondence dated 20 August 2010 which referred to this
application. Detailed within this report are our objections to the above application which we
request will be considered by both officers and committee members in making a determination
of this planning application. These objections have been prepared and submitted on behalf of
our client Mr Hay-Smith of the Greenhouse Community Project.
1.2
In summary, we recommend that the latest Tesco application does not adequately address the
clear harm the appeal Inspector found in relation to previous applications submitted by the
applicant on this site – a finding which resulted in the appeal being dismissed. In our view, the
revised proposals from the 2009 (PLA20090818) and now 2010 (ref PF/10/0920) applications
will still result in identifiable harm to the 'vitality, viability and retail function of Sheringham town
centre''. This will also create unacceptably adverse effects upon the character and
appearance of the area arising from the poor design of the building and its orientation with the
main store entrance not addressing the Cromer Road frontage. The proposed pedestrian
linkages to the wider town centre still remain ineffective in reducing these adverse effects,
particularly in respect to the interaction of the proposed pedestrian route with existing
permitted uses along Station Road.
1.3
In addition this application has not sought to remedy the failings of its 2009 application in
respect to assessing the transport impact of these proposals. There remains continued
reliance upon previous out of date traffic surveys and assessment work which we suggest is
not sufficiently robust to demonstrate the impact this development would have upon the
surrounding highway infrastructure. Whilst the Government Inspector reporting in 2008,
suggested that the traffic impacts were not a significant material consideration, we would
argue that given the changes in the proposals, and the lack of updated robust technical
evidence to support these changes, the following objections relating to transport and traffic
demonstrate that these impacts are now significant. Therefore they are very relevant as
material planning considerations in considering this planning application.
1.4
We consider the following objections clearly demonstrate the identifiable harm and
unsuitability the latest Tesco application will have on Sheringham which as concluded by the
appeal Inspector were of overriding importance to justify refusal of planning permission.
Furthermore, these objections clearly show the site of the Tesco application to be unsuitable
for the development proposed.
1
PF/10/0920 Statement of Objection on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project 1
(21.5)
1
Appendix 21
1.5
Having reviewed Tesco's latest planning application and supporting documentation we wish to
make the following observations. These should be read in conjunction with our previous
submissions in relation to Tesco's previous 2009 planning application (Ref PLA/20090818)
which remain valid.
1.6
In summary our objections relate to:
Effect upon the Vitality & Viability of Sheringham Town Centre
Transport & Traffic
Loss of Affordable Housing
Loss of Protected Trees
S106 Matters
2
PF/10/0920 Statement of Objection on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project 2
(21.6)
2
Appendix 21
2
EFFECT UPON THE VITALITY & VIABILITY OF SHERINGHAM TOWN CENTRE
Sequential Issues
2.1
We note that the revised proposals seek to provide for a wider pedestrian linkage between the
site and Station Road in response to concerns raised by Members at the Planning Committee
meeting on 4th March 2010. Unfortunately, the effect of this widened pedestrian and cycle link
is effectively negated by the inability of Tesco to widen the access for its full length through to
Station Road with properties at 57-73 Station Road remaining and providing a pinch point
which reduces both the visual and physical linkages with Station Road and therefore the Town
Centre. In addition, existing permitted uses operate within this vicinity including the Town's
taxi business which results in the movement of and parking of vehicles within the area which is
proposed to include the walkway as it intersects with Station Road. We would suggest this
offers potential for dangerous conflict to exist between vehicles operating within this area and
pedestrians seeking to access the proposed store to and from the town centre via this
walkway. We would suggest this could deter people from utilising this walkway, as it would fail
to provide a safe and convenient route into the town centre.
2.2
As a result, despite the widening of part of the pedestrian link to Station Road, we maintain
that the Cromer Road site does not meet the definition of edge-of-centre contained within
PPS4 or the associated Practice Guidance. The Practice Guidance to PPS4 states that in
determining whether a site falls within the definition of 'edge of centre' account should be
taken of local circumstances. Paragraph 6.6 gives a number of examples which may affect
pedestrians' perceptions of easy walking distance: "for example local topography will affect
pedestrians' perceptions of easy walking distances from the centre. Other considerations
include barriers, such as crossing major roads and car parks, the attractiveness and perceived
safety of the route and strength of attraction and size of the town centre." In terms of the
consideration of edge of centre sites and linkages the practice guidance states that
(paragraph 6.6/6.7):
"A site will not be well connected to a centre where it is physically separated from it by a
barrier such as a major road, railway line or river and there is no existing or proposed route
which provides safe and convenient access to the centre….As well as existing and proposed
physical links between the site/proposals and the PSA, the degree of functional linkage
between the two will have a major effect on the level of linked trips. People may be
more willing to walk between an edge of centre site and the PSA if they have strong
complementary attractions."
2.3
We do not consider that the Cromer Road site has good connections to the centre by means
of easy pedestrian access and therefore should not be considered sequentially preferable for
3
PF/10/0920 Statement of Objection on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project 3
(21.7)
3
Appendix 21
this reason. There are a number of barriers between the Primary Shopping Area (PSA) and
the site which have not been overcome by the proposed revisions to the layout. The proposed
pedestrian linkages are poor, and adequate consideration has not been given to the safety of
the proposed linkages. The Cromer Road site is severed from the Town Centre by a busy
junction and a railway line. The degree of functional linkages at present is very poor and the
degree of linkages proposed by the revised Cromer Road application are not sufficient to
remedy this issue. Our objections to the Cromer Road application on these grounds therefore
remain relevant to this revised application.
2.4
We also note that the revised proposals detailed in this application propose a reduction in the
number of small independent retail units from 5 to 2 with a corresponding decrease in
floorspace for this use from 316m2 to 86m2. Nonetheless, the applicant has still not sought to
take account of the potential for the disaggregation of these units as part of their sequential
assessment and have failed to demonstrate that there are no more centrally located sites to
accommodate these units. The sequential assessment produced by the applicant's
consultants looked only at the food store element of the proposal and not at smaller sites that
could accommodate these independent retail units. It is evident from our own research that
there are a number of vacant units within the existing PSA which could accommodate such
'independent' floorspace requirements. As such, we therefore consider that the revised Tesco
application is not consistent with the requirements of Policy EC15 of PPS4 and Policy EC5 of
the North Norfolk Core Strategy.
2.5
Moreover, throughout the Planning and Retail Assessment, Alsop Verrill refers to the site as if
it were an intrinsic part of Sheringham Town Centre. This is clearly not the case in retail terms
since it falls outside of the PSA boundary and is severed from the PSA by the rail line. Indeed,
because of these poor linkages we maintain that the site cannot legitimately be described as
an edge-of-centre site.
As a result, a number of the conclusions drawn by Alsop Verrill
regarding the impact of the proposals upon the Town Centre, particularly in terms of linked
trips and trade draw, are therefore misleading and inaccurately based as they are on this false
and misleading premise.
2.6
We therefore continue to consider that the Cromer Road application should not be assessed
favourably against Policy EC15 of PPS4.
Retail Impact
2.7
We continue to maintain that the revised proposals will still result in identifiable harm to the
vitality, viability and retail function of Sheringham Town Centre by shifting the focus of the
centre to the south and undermining the vitality and viability of the traditional retail core to the
4
PF/10/0920 Statement of Objection on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project 4
(21.8)
4
Appendix 21
north. Moreover, as MVA's assessment highlights, Alsop Verill have underestimated the
potential trading impacts of the proposed Tesco store on the Town Centre. Indeed, whilst we
note that Alsop Verill have used an alternative definition of the net retail sales area it is not
clear whether this has been applied consistently throughout their impact assessment.
2.8
Moreover, the extent to which the proposed store will result in linked trips with other facilities
and shops in the Town Centre to off-set trade diversion will depend on the linkages that exist
between the Cromer Road site and the Town Centre. PPS4 suggest that linkages are
important in defining sites as edge-of-centre, and therefore it is questionable whether the
Cromer Road site can be considered an 'edge-of-centre' site. Indeed, because of these poor
linkages a number of the conclusions drawn by Alsop Verrill regarding the impact of the
proposals upon the Town Centre, particularly in terms of linked trips and trade draw, are
therefore misleading and inaccurately based as they are on this false and misleading premise.
2.9
We therefore continue to consider that the Cromer Road application should not be assessed
favourably against Policy EC16 of PPS4.
Compliance with PPS 4 Wider Impact Tests
2.10
We continue to consider that this Cromer Road application cannot be assessed favourably
against a number of the wider impact test criteria which form part of Policy EC10 of PPS4.
2.11
The Cromer Road proposal will result in an unacceptable adverse effect upon the character
and appearance of the area arising from the poor design of the building and its orientation with
the main store entrance not addressing the Cromer Road Frontage. The proposed pedestrian
linkage to the wider town centre will be ineffective in reducing these adverse effects.
Moreover, these Cromer Road proposals have not provided any servicing arrangements for
the independent units and the store frontage is visible from and faces the railway line but there
is no reference to the Station Road or Cromer Road frontages.
2.12
The narrow width of part of the pedestrian link and the lack of visual surveillance ensure that
the proposal will not create a safe and secure environment, which is an important component
of high quality and inclusive design. The safety and security of the proposed environment has
previously been heavily criticised by Norfolk Constabulary in achieving 'Secure by Design'
status.
2.13
We therefore continue to consider that the Cromer Road application should not be assessed
favourably against this wider impact test.
2.14
Accordingly, notwithstanding the relatively minor modifications to the proposals detailed within
this application (ref PF/10/0920) we continue to maintain that the proposed development does
5
PF/10/0920 Statement of Objection on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project 5
(21.9)
5
Appendix 21
not comply with Policies EC10, EC15 and EC16 of PPS4 or Policy EC5 of the North Norfolk
Core Strategy. On this basis, this application should be refused.
6
PF/10/0920 Statement of Objection on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project 6
(21.10)
6
Appendix 21
3
TRANSPORT & TRAFFIC
3.1
Following our own technical review of the August 2010 Transport Assessment and July 2010
Interim Travel Plan which was prepared by Mouchel, we consider our previous highway
objections to the 2009 Cromer Road application remain valid. From reviewing the evidence,
there appears to be no further update to the technical assessment of highway impact arising
as a result of this proposed development, including continued reliance upon traffic survey data
which was produced in 2006. We have previously questioned the validity of this survey data
and demonstrated that the traffic flows on the highway network are materially different to those
which form the basis of the Transport Assessment which accompanies this planning
application. We now reiterate our highway related objections which should be considered
afresh by this new application.
Proposed Site Access/Junction Arrangements
3.2
The site access as proposed is assembled to create what is a staggered priority junction
arrangement with Cremers Drift. The arrangement provided does not accord with the guidance
as set out in TD 42/95 which identifies the various design criteria to be considered for major
and minor junction arrangements. Whilst it is accepted that the manoeuvring requirements of
an 18.35m articulated HGV need not be accommodated in this location the principles for the
design of the junction remain valid and should be considered.
3.3
There is likely to be a significant level of interaction between the junction of Cremers Drift and
the proposed Tesco car park. The ghost island arrangement proposed we consider is
inadequate and potentially unsafe as vehicles turning right from Cromer Road into Cremers
Drift would have to cross through and potentially wait in the taper hatched area. This is likely
to present a potential threat to highway safety and a hazard to other road users, including
pedestrians within the immediate surroundings.
3.4
The presence of the relocated bus stop along Cromer Road also gives cause for objection on
the basis of highway safety as vehicles overtaking the bus at the stop could potentially be in
conflict with vehicles emerging from Cremers Drift which would be unsighted by the presence
of the bus. In addition, in overtaking the bus, vehicles would then have to negotiate both the
taper hatching and the pedestrian island which would compromise highway safety for vehicles
and pedestrians within the immediate locality.
3.5
Additionally, the need to accommodate the needs of a relocated fire station in the middle of
this sub-standard arrangement and the presence of the service area to the west of the store
access would be likely to further complicate the proposed access arrangements to the
7
PF/10/0920 Statement of Objection on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project 7
(21.11)
7
Appendix 21
detriment of highway safety. This is because such an unsuitable arrangement increases the
number of points of conflict with road users. With the presence of the Fire Station within the
immediate vicinity there is no evidence shown on the drawings of providing a controlled exit
for fire appliances. Normally the installation of wig-wag signals would be recommended for this
purpose.
Junction Capacity
3.6
We acknowledge that the capacity assessment for the site access and Cremers Drift has been
undertaken using a simple priority junction PICADY model. In view of the level of interaction
between the junctions and the junction spacing, we suggest that a staggered junction PICADY
model should have been utilised. In this respect it is likely that the modelled results submitted
over estimate the capacity of the junction arrangement as set out. Using the incorrect model is
likely to reduce the junction capacity and therefore currently overestimates the capacity of the
junction.
Validity of Traffic Surveys
3.7
After reviewing the submitted Transport Assessment, we believe that the transport evidence
submitted has not been modified to reflect the development now proposed.
3.8
The 2006 traffic data used in the assessment was undertaken during periods of heavy rain
both on the Friday and Saturday which could have a significant impact on the validity of the
assessment. In considering this issue, the Friday May 2006 PM peak (Tesco) data has been
compared with Friday May 2009 PM peak data which has been collected in the preparation of
the Greenhouse planning application. This comparison clearly shows that the total junction
flow at the Station Road Roundabout associated with the 2006 data, over the period 16:0017:00, was some 15% lower than that surveyed 3 years later on a dry day in May 2009 for the
same time period. This is set against a period of very modest traffic growth of around 0.3% per
annum. This level of difference is significant for the purposes of traffic modelling and traffic
capacity and is the equivalent to the impact of, for example, a small retail store. Relying upon
traffic data in May 2006 we would suggest is neither representative of the development now
proposed nor of the current traffic situation. Guidance and best practice recommend that traffic
surveys should be undertaken within 3 years of the submission date of the application. We
note the surveys used were undertaken in May 2006 and given the application was submitted
in August 2010, this is now clearly outside the recommended period for use of this data.
3.9
It is considered that the traffic survey data used is questionable and is unlikely to reflect the
typical current situation and therefore does not provide a robust assessment of the traffic
impact associated with the development now proposed by Tesco. This further demonstrates
8
PF/10/0920 Statement of Objection on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project 8
(21.12)
8
Appendix 21
this site’s lack of suitability and the likely significant harm caused in permitting the proposed
development.
3.10
With regard to the survey periods considered, the Tesco proposals assessed the Friday PM
and Saturday peak periods only, the assessment did not consider the AM peak traffic period.
Whilst the AM peak tends to have a lower trip generation potential with respect to retail traffic
than the PM peak period, the background traffic in the AM peak will be similar and will be
higher or lower on certain movements due to the tidality between AM and PM traffic
movements. In this respect the AM peak could have the potential to be more affected by the
proposed development traffic than the generation figures would suggest as a smaller increase
in traffic could have a greater impact on operational efficiency. Indeed if the store was unlikely
to generate so few trips during this period there would be no commercial reason to open in the
AM period.
3.11
It is considered therefore that to ignore the proposal's impact on the AM peak period does not
provide for a sufficiently robust assessment of the stores impact upon the local highway
network.
Car Parking
3.12
Whilst the parking is provided in accordance with policy, we would suggest that the parking
accumulation model is not robust as it ignores the potential for visitors taking advantage of the
3 hour free parking. If this occurs to any extent it is likely that the car park will be over
subscribed during busy periods. This situation is likely to result in additional un-forecasted
queuing at the site access which would have implications for highway safety and capacity in
the vicinity.
3.13
Based upon our assessment, we would suggest that the proposed parking provision will be
inadequate for the likely level of demand and as such will lead to parking on street and
elsewhere in the locality.
3.14
With respect to the overall parking provision proposed, this is provided at a level significantly
lower than the maximum permissible under current guidance. The current guidance, across all
the uses proposed, would give a maximum total in the region of 175 car parking spaces with
an additional 10 spaces for disabled users (that is 6% in addition to the base number). This
would suggest a total car park provision on this site of 185 spaces. Whilst the objectives of
policy are to reduce the level of provision where appropriate, this has to be taken in the
context of the operational requirements of the development. The proposed provision of 143
spaces whilst, being at a lower level than the maximum permissible does not cover the other
9
PF/10/0920 Statement of Objection on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project 9
(21.13)
9
Appendix 21
uses proposed on site, namely the independent retail units, the community space or the
residential units.
3.15
Capacity issues in the car park would also be likely to lead to internal circulation issues
caused by space searching and an increase level of movement at the proposed site access
resulting in an unnecessary harmful effect upon the amenity of the immediate locality.
Pedestrian Access
3.16
The proposed access arrangements for both the car park and the service area are considered
to compromise pedestrian safety for users of the footway to the north side of Cromer Road.
The access points as shown are very wide and in particular the service yard access road
which measures some 20m in width at the pedestrian crossing area would present a
significant obstacle for elderly or infirm users to cross safely.
Servicing
3.17
We would consider that the servicing arrangements for the proposed store are adequate.
However it is unclear how the 'independent' units adjacent to the rail station will be serviced as
there is no direct servicing route provision for these outlets that would not compromise the
proposed pedestrian routes into the site.
PF/10/0920 Statement of Objection on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project 10
(21.14)
10
10
Appendix 21
4
LOSS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
4.1
The proposed development if permitted would result in the demolition of the existing District
Council owned Lockerbie Flats which currently provides part of the affordable housing
provision for the town. We are not aware of any proposal to mitigate this loss, either by off site
provision, or by a financial contribution. This therefore would result in a net loss of affordable
housing from Sheringham at a time when we understand that there are over 500 people
waiting for social housing within the town. This also comes at a time when the Council's
overall performance was reported by the Audit Commission in December 2009 as 'adequate'
because of its failing to achieve an important priority of 'making sure that there are enough
homes, especially affordable ones for local people.'
4.2
It is against this background that members of the 4 March Planning Committee took the view
that the loss of affordable housing from this site weighed against the Cromer Road scheme,
and therefore meant that it could not be assessed favourably against the wider impact
considerations of Policy EC10.2 of PPS4. This included the harmful impacts the proposals
would cause to social inclusion, given that the proposal will result in the net loss of affordable
housing in an area of acute affordable housing shortage.
4.3
It is noted that this application refers to the two flats proposed adjacent to Cromer Road as
'affordable homes'. We have previously requested further clarification from the Council as to
what is meant by the term 'affordable' in this context and whether this relates to affordable
private market housing or affordable social housing. This clarification is still awaited from both
the Council and the applicant.
4.4
In the event that the two units are proposed to be social housing, the provision of two units by
this scheme are unlikely to be considered a viable management proposition for an RSL, and
will also not compensate for the loss of 11 social units which will result from the demolition of
Lockerbie Flats if this scheme is approved.
4.5
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.' 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 on this site.
PF/10/0920 Statement of Objection on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project 11
(21.15)
11
11
Appendix 21
4.6
In addition, the applicant's agent in correspondence to the Council 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 consideration of £1.2million would be payable to the District
Council (under the contract between the District Council and Tesco dated 9 May 2003 but
subsequently varied) 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 since 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. Given the likelihood of further public sector cuts ahead, public finance will be
scarce and therefore likely that this financial sum will have other pressures on where it is
spent. Therefore this does not provide any certainty that this money provided by the applicant
will be re-invested in affordable housing for Sheringham, which again indicates the Cromer
Road scheme, will lead to a net loss of affordable housing in the town.
4.7
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 made no reference to this value reflecting the need to offset the
loss of affordable housing from this site. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that this financial
contribution of £1.2 million is indeed 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. It is therefore
suggested that a further planning obligation is sought through the S106 agreement to secure
an appropriate contribution as mitigation for the net loss of affordable housing from the
Cromer Road site.
5
LOSS OF TREES
5.1
In arriving at their decision on the 4 March 2010, 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 would be too significant and would be contrary to Development Plan Policies
EN2 and EN4 of the Core Strategy. The Cromer Road scheme, if permitted, would result in
the felling of two protected trees, and therefore the scheme does not seek to protect and
conserve the distinctive landscape features provided by these trees or enhance their function
as ecological corridors for the dispersal of wildlife.
PF/10/0920 Statement of Objection on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project 12
(21.16)
12
12
Appendix 21
6
S106 MATTERS
6.1
It is noted that the August 2010 version of the draft s106 agreement which accompanied this
application contains similar obligations but with some extra provisions added to cover
affordable housing and the renting of the independent units.
6.2
As the Council will be aware, since the changes brought about by the CIL Regulations, from 6
April 2010, three of the Circular 5/05 tests are now statutory. Therefore the s106 must be
assessed against the following. Is the planning obligation:
6.3
i
Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
ii
Directly related to the development;
iii
Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
In respect to the new provisions introduced for affordable housing, section 3.2 of the draft
agreement covers this. Given the net loss of affordable housing, on which we have already
commented, we question whether these provisions are fairly and reasonably related in scale
and kind to the development. Further, clause 3.2(b) of the draft seeks to impose a positive
obligation to effect a disposal to a third party. In our view this is not an effective way of
securing that outcome and in any event this is not an appropriate covenant for a s106
undertaking.
6.4
The way the provisions related to the independent units are drafted does call into question
whether the wording falls into section 106, in particular applying the new statutory 5/05 tests.
6.5
It is also noted that there is no reference to ensuring the s106 covers the reprovision of the
Fire Station and the Community Centre before clearance/commencement on the Cromer
Road site, given that no other s106 agreement is linked to the planning permissions for the
new Fire Station and Community Centre.
6.6
Further, we note that the obligation is only offered by Tesco, with its limited interest in the site,
rather than by the freeholder(s) of the whole. This calls into question the value of the
covenants and the weight to be given to them
PF/10/0920 Statement of Objection on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project 13
(21.17)
13
13
Appendix 21
7
CONCLUDING REMARKS
7.1
To conclude, the significant objections raised in this statement in relation to application ref
PF/10/0920 demonstrates the unsuitability of the Cromer Road site for the development
proposed. These objections also demonstrate the unequivocal harm (in the broadest sense)
as identified above which would be caused to Sheringham in permitting the Tesco
development on this site.
PF/10/0920 Statement of Objection on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project 14
(21.18)
14
14
Appendix 21
7.2
PF/10/0920 Statement of Objection on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project 15
(21.19)
15
15