APPENDIX 1
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT – 21 MARCH 2013
3.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0945 - Erection of A1 (retail) store (5,574 sqm gross
floor area, 3,623 sqm net sales area), new access onto A149 Cromer Road,
petrol filling station and ancillary development including 412 space car park,
service yard and landscaping.; Former Marricks Wire Ropes Premises, Cromer
Road for Scott Properties Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 16 November 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside (part)
Employment Area (part)
Brownfield site (part)
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19761423 PF - Steel rope and wire repairs by hydraulically operated
machinery for agricultural use
Approved 14/12/1976
PLA/19891149 PO - Supermarket with car parking & 30 dwellings with car parking
Refused 25/08/1989 WD 17/07/1990
PLA/19891925 PO - Supermarket, car parking & residential development
Refused 11/01/1990
PLA/19900445 PO - Supermarket & car park for 445 cars
Approved 05/06/1990
PLA/19930776 PO - Supermarket and car park
Refused 25/11/1993
PLA/20060618 PO - Residential development
Refused 18/07/2006
PLA/20071135 PO - Residential development
Refused 23/11/2007 D 13/08/2008
PLA/20071136 PO - Residential development
Refused 23/11/2007 D 13/08/2008
PLA/19960666 PO - Demolish existing buildings and erect retail supermarket with
petrol filling station, parking, service areas and access
Refused 09/01/1997
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to demolish all buildings on the site and erect a retail supermarket
with a gross floor area of approximately 5,600 square metres (60,000 sqft) on a site
area of approximately 3.1 hectares (approximately 7.6 acres). The proposal also
includes the provision of petrol filling station at the site entrance, together with the
provision of a new vehicular entrance off Cromer Road comprising alterations to
Bradfield Road.
Within the site 412 vehicle parking spaces are proposed (including 19 parent and
child spaces, 18 disabled spaces and 25 staff parking places), together with 3
motorcycle and moped spaces and 16 cycle spaces for customers. Whilst all vehicles
would share the same access point onto Cromer Road, service vehicles wishing to
access the service yard would then have their own access lane directly off the main
entrance which would also provide access for staff parking together with a proposed
bus lay-by, with the rest of the site accessible to customers.
The applicant has indicated that the net sales area of the proposed store would be
approximately 3,623 square metres. Based on the submitted plans, it would suggest
that the net sales area has been defined using the National Retail Planning Forum
(NRPF) definition of sales area (see (Appendix 5) for full definition of sales areas).
The applicant has indicated that, based on a net sales area of 3,623 square metres,
2,536 square metres would be used for the sale of convenience goods whilst 1,087
square metres would be used for the sale of comparison goods.
The proposed supermarket building would have a rectangular footprint with a
frontage width of approximately 91 metres, a depth of approximately 61 metres and a
maximum height of 11.7 metres (front entrance). An enclosed service yard
measuring approximately 25 metres x 65 metres would also be provided on the north
western side of the building. The store would be constructed from a range of
materials including brick and flint, timber posts and louvred panels, composite
insulated panels, standing seam metal roof (to pitched sections) and membrane
covered flat roof.
A petrol filling station is proposed at the front of the site which would enable 12
vehicles to use the filling station at the same time. A kiosk of approximately 90
square metres is also proposed. The kiosk building would have curved walls made of
brick and flint with a height of approximately 4 metres. The canopy above the petrol
filling station would measure approximately 14.5 metres x 21 metres with a ceiling
height of 4.7 metres and a maximum overall height of 5.6 metres
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Development Management in view of the complex
planning issues involved.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports the proposal.
Still has concerns over the size, location and highways issues but supports the
application subject to the following conditions being imposed:1) The proposed access to and from the site and Cromer Road be reviewed to avoid
potential traffic congestion and ultimately public safety. The particular shortcoming in
the proposed layout relates to vehicles turning right out of the site into Cromer
Road. The Town Council is not satisfied with the answers given by the Highway
Authority regarding the concerns they previously highlighted;
2) To mitigate the adverse impact on the town centre (as evidenced by NNDC's
independent audit of the retail impact assessment and planning statement provided
by the applicant);
3) The total area devoted to the display and sale of goods (excluding check outs)
shall be limited to 3623sqm net and not more than 1087 sqm net shall be used for
the sale of comparison goods.
4) The sale and display of goods shall not include separate retail outlets for
hairdressing, dry cleaning, travel agency, florists (could be added to). Further any
ancillary cafeteria shall be limited in capacity so as not to discourage use of and
unfairly compete with cafeteria establishments within the town centre.
5) A scheme is provided at the proposed retail store to advertise and promote
businesses located in and around the town centre.
6) Have Section 106 obligations that provides funding :
to provide street furniture and plantation and other ancillary facilities to
enhance the appearance of the town centre in accordance with its status as a
conservation area.
to promote and market businesses and retail provision in the town centre.
to provide a free town centre car park and extend the period of free car
parking in other town centre car parks.
to establish a fund to assist in the removal of derelict land/empty properties in
the vicinity of the town centre.
to establish a fund to assist small businesses wishing to start up in the town.
to assist in providing an improved bus interchange in the town centre and
thus remove unnecessary bus congestion.
The funds for these activities are to be held by NNDC but administered by an
appropriate body in the town.
7) The Town Council wishes to be consulted on and appropriately involved in by
NNDC on matters set out in this resolution. Once the discussions with Scott
Properties have been completed the Town Council may wish to review this situation.
REPRESENTATIONS
11 Representations have been received, 7 objecting, 3 supporting and 1 comment
only
Summary of comments in objection:
1. North Walsham does not need 4 supermarkets;
2. What will this do to our already fragile shops;
3. Will increase traffic along Cromer Road
4. Will increase noise along Cromer Road, especially at night;
5. Increases further risk to Cromer Road railway bridge from strikes;
6. The population of North Walsham cannot support this an existing stores in the
town;
7. Will have severe trading impacts on the town centre shops;
8. Increased traffic will prevent people accessing and leaving their homes on
Cromer Road;
9. See no merit in two supermarkets so close to each other on Cromer Road;
10. The majority of the site currently is and has always been agricultural land and not
part of the former Marrick’s Wire site;
11. This is one of the worst sites possible for a supermarket in the town;
12. The site is only served by one road
13. We need a petrol filling station but not another supermarket;
14. The site slopes and there are real concerns about the impact of surface water
drainage, especially for the lowest part of the site in the north-eastern corner;
15. Highway safety will be compromised with the high volumes of traffic using
Cromer Road;
16. A site closer to the town centre should be sought;
17. Why not find a brownfield site;
18. There is wildlife in the area that would be adversely affected by the proposal.
Summary of comments in support:
1. Would be good to clear up the front part of the site;
2. Will create local employment;
3. Will draw people into the town;
4. Will kick-start regeneration of this important gateway site;
5. Petrol filling station is a welcome addition;
6. The town centre is in decline, not from out of town shopping but from the internet;
7. This proposal will bring commerce back into the town;
8. It would bring something better to North Walsham.
Summary of comments only:
1. If the proposal is approved, conditions should be imposed to require a
landscaping buffer strip between the site and adjacent residential properties on
Suffield Close
A representation of objection has been submitted on behalf of Waitrose on the basis
that the proposal fails the retail tests in terms of site selection and on impact grounds.
A sequentially preferable site exists and which was not available at the time of
submission of their application. The store is twice the size of that at Waitrose and
impact on the town centre would be significantly adverse. The proposed development
would reduce trade from the Waitrose store and this in turn could affect local
suppliers and could result in job losses.
Representation from applicants in response to the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager’s comments on design.
“Poole & Pattle [the architects] took the design of the building and the site layout very
seriously. We read and took account of the North Norfolk Design Guide… The guide
recognises that it would be wrong to attempt to disguise a building of such a size as
some version of former building types but for which there are no historic precedents.
It also acknowledges that previous advice – tending inevitably towards pastiche –
was misguided. Instead, it encourages “innovative and honest solutions which reflect
the true use of these buildings”. This is the approach that we have taken. We have
not tried to disguise the scale or the purpose of the building. Instead, we have
focused on allowing the building to signal clearly, its function, its key elements and its
relationship with its site and the wider context.
We have..[used]..a palette of traditional materials across the front elevation – facing
brick, flint panels and timber posts supporting timber louvered screens in an honest,
modern arrangement which clearly signals the main entrance. Whilst the form is
“honest” and modern, these are materials which make references to traditional local
construction methods and with whose scale – a human scale - we are all familiar.
We have varied the height of the building across its front elevation to signal and
emphasize the entrance, whilst reducing the scale away from the entrance on the
eastern side closest to the rear gardens of the properties in Suffield Close‟.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - No objection subject to conditions.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C& D) – The proposed store will be
a substantial structure, reaching nearly 12 metres in height at its maximum over the
main entrance/lobby. Given that the site is located towards the edge of North
Walsham and borders open countryside there is potentially a substantial landscape
impact.
In terms of architectural design once again we are faced with the usual design
approach: a primarily glazed shop frontage with all other elevations being a bland mix
of composite cladding and metallic roofing. Some measure of interest is provided
through the use of timber louvred panels over the front entrance and timber posts for
the piers supporting the roof overhangs. Facing brick and flint panels are also
proposed for those parts of the south elevation of the building not glazed.
Overall the form and massing of the proposed store is ‘box-like’ and ‘functional’.
Other than the materials mentioned above there is little attempt in the design to
reflect local character or distinctiveness or to find an architectural theme which would
resonate with the locality. The proposed store is ‘industrial‘ in scale on the edge of
the built-up area of North Walsham. Whilst the area of the application is one of mixed
character with employment uses previously located on the site and housing nearby
there does not appear to have been a serious attempt to raise the standard of design
or to take a more innovative approach.
Of general concern must be the scale and massing of the store. The building itself
would be located at the back of the site with parking dominating views of the store
from Cromer Road. The opportunities for landscaping and tree or shrub planting are
very few and far between.
[In respect of the proposed petrol filling station] the designers have tried to create
some interest through the interlacing of brick and flint bands in a wall which will be 4
metres in height. Given that the petrol filling station will be the first structure you will
see as you approach the store by car… it is a very disappointing design.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – Objection on grounds
that the development together with the landscaping enhancement scheme will not
preserve or enhance the character and quality of the area.
The site contains a variety of different habitats and some structures and can be
usefully broken down into four distinct areas. These include a pair of derelict semidetached dwellings (Area 3), a derelict light industrial use type building to the rear
(Area 2), an area of brownfield land given over to scrub and ruderal vegetation (Area
1) and finally an agricultural field to the north of the site (Area 4).
The site is bordered in part by native hedgerows and hedgerow trees and in other
parts by fencing both wooden and chain link. To the north of the site and separated
by a small field is the main Sheringham to Norwich Railway line, to the west of the
site lies Bradfield Road a single track country lane and further west the former Crane
Fruehauf industrial area. To the south of the site is the main A149 Cromer road, and
south of the road lay agricultural fields and open countryside, and to the east are
residential areas and the Travis Perkins Builders Yard. Some connectivity for the site
to the wider countryside is possible through the railway line and hedgerows.
The site does not contain any designated sites for nature conservation; the nearest
site is Bryants Heath SSSI which is 1.6km to the south west. Field surveys were
conducted in June and July 2012. Area 1 comprised areas of open land, rubbish piles
and hard standing and was considered to have good potential for reptiles and
amphibians. Further investigation revealed the presence of Common Lizard, and a
small population is expected. Area 2 includes a redundant brick and tile building and
a metal profiled sheet building, both in various states of disrepair. The buildings did
not reveal any evidence of protected species utilising the buildings and were unlikely
to hold suitable habitat for roosting opportunities. Area 3 included the brick and tile
semi-detached properties to the south of the site and adjacent to the main road. The
dwellings were in a poor state of repair and were draughty. They did not hold any
potential for roosting bats and no evidence was found of their presence. Area 4 was
in arable cultivation at the time of the survey and held little opportunity for protected
species. The trees along the boundary of the field were inspected for evidence of
roosting bats, but none were found.
No evidence of roosting bats was found on the site either in buildings or trees;
however bats were found to forage and commute along the field boundaries along
Bradfield Road. Based on the field survey results, approximately twelve species of
bird are expected to breed within the site and over thirty species were recorded on or
around the site. The only other protected species that are considered to find the site
suitable are Common Lizards for which a small population was found within the site
(approximately 25 animals). The Phase One Habitat
Survey recorded eight spikes of flowering Bee Orchid in the southern section of Area
1.
Based on the results of the survey, the development is not considered to have a
significant impact on biodiversity or protected species. Common Lizards are
protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) from deliberate
destruction, therefore mitigation will be required to capture and translocate the small
population from the site to another suitable site.
Further details of capture programme and receptor site would be required. Mitigation
would also be required in terms of avoiding clearing vegetation in the bird breeding
season and retaining a dark corridor along Bradfield Road for commuting bats. Some
opportunities for enhancement are available through the provision of bird boxes and
enhancing the existing boundary vegetation through a native landscaping scheme. If
planning approval is granted then I would recommend that conditions are attached to
the permission to implement the mitigation and enhancement recommendations of
the report.
In respect of landscape considerations, the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment
(LVIA) notes that the… site is not within any specially designated or valued
landscapes such as AONB or Conservation Area…The existing baseline conditions
for the landscape within and surrounding the site is one of contrast, with varying
influences such as industrial, residential and rural connotations…
The general visibility of the site is generally confined by trees, landform and existing
development, and generally limited to the streets surrounding the site. The sensitivity
of surrounding receptors range from high to low, this depends on the type of
receptor, existing screening, orientation and distance from the site.
The LVIA recommends landscaping should seek to integrate the new development
with the surrounding development through the use of the existing trees and new
planting, including the use of trees to screen the development from the bungalows on
Suffield Close.
The petrol filling station would be a prominent feature on the Cromer Road frontage.
It is envisaged that the effects of the development would reduce from moderate to
slight following a 15 year period and the establishment of the landscaping.
The LVIA suggests that retaining most of the existing vegetation together with the
proposed landscaping would mitigate for the impact of the development, however it is
considered that the landscaping proposals are limited and do little to enhance the
edge of town character, particularly the stark built up form of the petrol filling station.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions including those
relating to the provision of parking spaces, details relating to construction
management, off-site highway works and completion of a travel plan.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions relating to surface water
drainage and contamination
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions including those relating to
the demolition of the existing buildings, hours of delivery to the store, lighting and
details of any extractors to be installed.
Mark Wood Associates (Retail Consultant) - The proposal would be likely to have a
significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of North Walsham town centre.
Appropriate mitigation would need to be secured before permission could be granted.
A copy of the report is attached at (Appendix 6a). (Appendices to the MWA report
are available only on the Council’s website and in the Members’ Room due to size of
document – see (Appendix 6b)).
Network Rail - No objection
Norfolk County Council's Historic Environment Service - No objection
North Walsham Chamber of Trade, C/o Hughes Electrical - No response
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to conditions
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended is considered to be
justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy SS 10: North Walsham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
2. Planning Policy Context
3. Principle of Development
4. Retail Matters
5. Highway Safety and Access
6. S106 Obligations
7. Impact on Residential Amenity
8. Design
9. Sustainability
10. Impact on Biodiversity
11. Landscape
12. Flood Risk and Drainage
13. Contamination
14. Other Material Considerations
15. Summary
APPRAISAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)
Officers have considered the proposal under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and guidance within Circular
02/99. The proposed development would involve the construction of a large
supermarket, car park and petrol filling which would be likely to have impacts related
to the physical construction of the supermarket building and petrol filling station,
impacts from hard surfacing works to provide the car park and impacts relating to
additional traffic movements into and out of the site. Nonetheless, whilst the proposal
would have some impacts it is not considered that those impacts would be
significantly adverse on the receiving environment to justify the proposal being EIA
development. In any event, the impacts of the proposal can be properly considered
through the normal planning application process including consideration of any
necessary mitigation.
PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the Development
Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The Development Plan currently comprises the North Norfolk Core Strategy (CS)
(adopted Sept 2008). At regional level the East of England Plan (EEP) (adopted May
2008) no longer remains part of the Development Plan following an Order to revoke
the EEP being laid before Parliament on the 11 December 2012 and which took
effect on 3 January 2013.
Local Policy
The relevant CS policies are set out above, the key significant policy being Policy EC
5 which suggests that retail units with a net sales area of 750sqm or greater will only
be permitted in the defined Primary Shopping Area of settlements with a large town
centre such as North Walsham. However, retail proposals which are located outside
the defined primary shopping area may be permitted provided that:A need exists within the catchment area for the scale and type of development
proposed; and
no sequentially preferable site is available, suitable and viable (starting with town
centre, edge of centre sites, then out-of-centre locations), and
the proposed development would not, individually or cumulatively, have a
significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing town centres or
nearby Service Villages or Coastal Service Villages; and
the proposed development would be accessible by a choice of means of
transport, including public transport, walking, cycling and the car.
National Policy
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect on 27
March 2012. The Framework replaced a series of national policy statements,
circulars and guidance including Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for
Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4). Although the thrust of the previous policy in
PPS 4 has been carried forward into the Framework, the wording is more condensed.
However, most of the supporting guidance has been retained for the time being
including the Practice Guidance to PPS4 – Planning for Town Centres.
Significantly, Annex 1 to the Framework reaffirms that planning law requires that
applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Paragraph 214
also provides that full weight should be given to policies in Local Plans adopted since
2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework. The definition
of Local Plans here includes the Core Strategy and other current development plan
documents. The CS was adopted as recently as 2008 and there is no obvious conflict
between the Framework and the relevant provisions of the CS in so far as matters
relevant to the determination of this application.
Core principles of the replacement Framework are now that planning should
‘proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the
homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the
country needs…[and]…….take account of the different roles and character of
different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas’ The Framework policy
on ensuring the vitality of town centres is set out in Section 2, a copy of which is
attached at (Appendix 4).
Paragraph 24 of the Framework states:
„Local Planning Authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for
main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance
with an up-to-date Local Plan…‟.
Paragraph 26 of the Framework states:
„When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of
town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local
planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over
a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold….This should include assessment
of:
The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private
investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and
The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including
local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to
five years from the time the application is made.‟
Paragraph 27 of the Framework states:
„Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant
adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused‟.
In considering the advice contained within the Framework, consideration should also
be given to the ministerial advice released from the Rt Hon Greg Clark MP – Minister
for Decentralisation concerning Planning for Growth dated 23 March 2011. Whilst this
was issued a full 12 months prior to the publication of the Framework, the Ministerial
advice has not been superseded by the Framework (except in relation to reference to
PPS4) and states, amongst other things, that:
„When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities
should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of
sustainable development. Where relevant - and consistent with their statutory
obligations - they should therefore:
(i) consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering
economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust
growth after the recent recession
(ii) take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for
key sectors, including housing
(iii) consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of
proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer
choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may,
where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity)
(iv) be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a
positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior
assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date
(v) ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.
In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have
regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate
weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure
sustainable growth are treated favourably….and that they can give clear reasons for
their decisions‟.
The advice within ‘Planning for Growth’ generally accords with the Framework at
paragraph 18 which states: „The Government is committed to securing economic
growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country‟s inherent
strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and a low carbon
future‟.
National policy advice is a material consideration to which the Committee should
afford appropriate weight when making its decision.
PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
Support in principle would, to a significant extent, be dependent upon the applicant
demonstrating that there are no sequentially preferable sites that are available,
suitable or viable in North Walsham; on the basis that the applicant can demonstrate
that the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability
of North Walsham town centre; on the basis that there are no significant highway
objections or other Development Plan policy conflicts or unless there are other
material considerations that would warrant a departure from Development Plan
policies.
RETAIL MATTERS
The proposed retail store would, according to the applicant’s retail reports and
submitted plans, have a gross floor area of approximately 5,600sqm (approx
60,000sqft) with net sales areas of approximately 3,623sqm (approx 39,000sqft)
using the National Retail Planning Forum (NRPF) definition of net sales area. (See
Appendix 5 for definition of net sales area).
The applicant has indicated that the net sales area would consist of 70%
convenience goods and 30% comparison goods. Using the National Retail Planning
Forum definition this would provide convenience floor space of approximately
2,536sqm (approx 27,300sqft) and comparison floor space of 1,087sqm (approx
11,700sqft).
Having regard to the requirements of local and national policy, the applicant has
submitted a retail report which, amongst other things, seeks to set out the
development proposed and address the sequential test and impact test
requirements. The applicant has provided further information, where requested, to
enable the Council to determine the proposal.
The Council has sought independent retail advice from Mark Wood Associates in
order to assess the information supplied by the applicant in support of the proposal.
Copies of the retail consultant’s reports are attached at (Appendix 6a).
Sequential Test
In respect of the sequential test, having regard to the Development Plan, the
application site sits partially within allocated employment land (the former Marrick’s
Rope site adjacent to Cromer Road), whilst the larger proportion of the site and the
land where the supermarket building is proposed to be located sits outside the
development boundary of North Walsham and is therefore within the Countryside
policy area. Given the location of the proposed supermarket building, Officers
consider the former Marrick’s Rope site should be assessed as being in an ‘out-oftown’ location and therefore before permission could be granted, all other
sequentially preferable sites within the town centre, edge of centre or out of centre
would have to be considered as to their availability, suitability and viability. At preapplication stage the applicant sought to agree with the Council a number of possible
sequentially preferable sites in North Walsham in order to assess their availability,
suitability and viability for retail development. The following alternative sites have
been assessed by the applicant (in no order of preference):
Vicarage Street car park;
St Nicholas Precinct;
Community Centre and Library (New Road);
Former HL Foods site (Norwich Road)
Midland Road site;
Laundry Loke
The applicant has concluded for various reasons in the retail report and additional
submissions that none of the above sites is available, suitable or viable for retail
development of the type proposed.
Whilst there is general agreement by Officers that most of the above listed alternative
sites are unlikely to be considered available, suitable or viable, the Committee may
recall that Officers previously advised, when considering the Waitrose application
(ref: PF/12/0310), that the HL Foods site could arguably be judged to be better
connected with the town centre, particularly given the guidance at paragraph 24 of
the Framework, which states that in respect of out of centre proposals, preference
should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to existing centres.
However the Committee may recall that it reached a view that the HL Food site and
former Focus DIY building (now Waitrose) were considered to be sequentially
equivalent in planning terms (both being out of centre). That decision therefore has
some bearing in the determination of the current application (albeit that the Marrick’s
site is technically ‘out of town’ development, although it is broadly the same distance
from the town centre as the Waitrose store).
Irrespective of whether one views the HL Food site to be sequentially preferable,
Officers are of the understanding that the HL Food site is no longer considered to be
available for retail supermarket development as there is no longer retail developer
interest and it is understood that the landowners are not pursuing such development
as part of their proposals for the wider site. The HL Food site is therefore ruled out in
sequential terms. This means that none of the above sites identified by the applicant
is considered to be available, suitable or viable and all can be ruled out in sequential
terms.
In respect of consideration of any other sequentially preferable sites, in response to a
recognition of the problems faced by North Walsham town centre, voiced through the
North Walsham Leadership of Place initiative, the Council sought to gather evidence
and has used its resources to help try and realise opportunities for the town in order
to, amongst other things, help improve the vitality and viability of the Town Centre
and stem the overall decline in footfall that has been occurring over recent years for
various reasons. As part of that information gathering process, the Council has given
consideration as to whether it would be possible to assemble a site within or adjacent
to the Town Centre of sufficient size to accommodate a supermarket comparable in
size to that proposed at the Marrick’s site.
Consultants appointed by the Council to undertake this task (Aspinall Verdi)
concluded that a sequentially preferable site was potentially available within North
Walsham town centre on the Paston College Lawns site. They also concluded that
supermarket development would likely be viable and potentially suitable in that
location. However, representatives of Paston College raised concerns as to whether
the benefits of the proposal (involving either relocation or consolidation of the college
on their Griffon site and/or Station Road site) would outweigh the potential longer
term harm to the college. At that time there was no identified developer interest in the
Paston College site (partly due to the fact that the Marrick’s proposal was yet to be
determined) but nonetheless the College indicated that they would not be pursuing
development of their Lawns site and Officers therefore were of the view that the site
was not considered to be available.
However, at the time of writing this report, Officers understand that developer interest
has recently emerged for the Paston College Lawns site and that an offer has been
put to the college for consideration. However, Officers are not aware that Paston
College has yet responded to the offer.
In considering alternative sites, the Council’s appointed retail consultant has
commented in respect of retail proposals generally that:
„The Practice Guidance confirms that compliance with the sequential approach to site
selection is an important aspect of retail policy. It makes clear that the onus is upon
the Applicant to demonstrate compliance. However it also advises that if a [Local
Planning Authority] LPA proposes to refuse an application involving town centre uses
on the basis of the sequential approach, it should be on the basis that it considers
there is, or maybe, a reasonable prospect of a sequentially preferable opportunity
coming forward which is likely to be capable of meeting the same requirements as
the application is intended to meet. If a LPA suggest alternative, more central sites as
being sequentially preferable, they should be satisfied that the alternatives are
genuinely likely to be suitable for the scale/form of town centre uses proposed,
having regard to their planning policies, their stated intentions for the site, and any
other planning conservation or environmental constraints affecting the site.‟
Having regard to the above advice, in considering the Marrick’s proposal, the
Committee needs to satisfy itself that there are no sequentially preferable sites that
are available, suitable and viable. In the event that Paston College accept the offer
for their Lawns site from the interested developer, then the Committee would have
little option but to accept that a sequentially preferable site has become available for
a development of comparable scale to that proposed at the Marrick’s site.
The Council is aware from its appointed consultants that development is likely to be
viable at the Lawns site and that would leave the Committee to consider whether
development of the Paston College Lawns site was suitable in planning terms. In
respect of suitability, other than the indicative sketch proposals prepared as part of
the work of Aspinall Verdi, the Local Planning Authority has no detailed design
drawings in relation to possible supermarket development on the Lawns site. The site
is partly within and adjacent to the North Walsham Conservation Area and there are
Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings nearby. Clearly there are a number of
development constraints but, in light of developer interest and a firm offer to the
college to buy the Lawns site, the Committee would be entitled to come to a view that
there was a reasonable prospect of a sequentially preferable opportunity coming
forward which is likely to be capable of meeting the same requirements as the
application is intended to meet.
In the situation where a sequential site exists, guidance within the National Planning
Policy Framework (paragraph 27) states:
„Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test….it should be refused‟.
However, if Paston College maintains its previous position that the Lawns site is not
for sale and therefore not available for retail supermarket development then the
Committee would have to come to the view that there are no sequentially preferable
sites and the Marrick’s proposal would have complied with the requirements of the
sequential test.
The Committee will be updated orally in the event that the position regarding the
availability of the Paston College site has been confirmed.
Impact Test
In respect of the impact test, the applicants have set out an assessment of impact in
their retail report.
The Council’s appointed retail consultant, using his extensive knowledge and
experience, has sought to assess critically the methodology and conclusions
contained in the applicant’s additional retail submissions. A copy of his report in
respect of impact is attached at (Appendix 6a).
Having considered the available evidence, in respect of impact the Council’s
appointed retail consultant has noted that the applicant has provided an „…estimate
of the impact of the proposed development taking into account the Waitrose store at
Cromer Road. The analysis is undertaken in a two step process. The impact of
Waitrose in 2013 is modelled and then in 2016 the impact of the proposed
development is then estimated‟.
The applicant has set out the predicted impacts on existing operators within the town
centre (including Sainsbury’s and Lidl). In terms of the impact on town centre as a
whole, the Council’s appointed retail consultant, having taken the figures provided by
the applicant, indicates that „Waitrose in isolation would lead to a loss [in trade in the
town centre] of £9.47m equating to an impact of 21.7% in 2013‟. The Committee will
recall that the Council’s appointed retail consultant considered the impact on the
town centre of the Waitrose store to be adverse, although not significantly adverse.
However the cumulative impact on the town centre of the Waitrose store together
with the proposed store at the Marrick’s site „would equate to a loss of £20.62m in
2016 [and] this would equate to an impact of around 47% [on the town centre].
This led the Council’s appointed retail consultant to state that:
„In our view despite the claims to the contrary… [made by the applicant], …the
cumulative impact would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the vitality
and viability of the town centre. At a time when town centres are under particular
pressure from the economic downturn, the rise of internet shopping and the
expansion of out-of-centre stores, we believe that the scale of the proposed store is
excessive and would have a materially harmful impact on the town centre.
The Council’s appointed retail consultant went on to conclude that
„In respect of the impact on the town centre we conclude that the submitted
assessment fails to provide sufficient information to enable us to conclude that it
would not be likely to have a significant impact on the town centre. In particular the
cumulative impact when taken in combination with the Waitrose store would
suppress trading levels within the town centre and the main food stores to
unacceptable levels. The Sainsbury‟s store would experience very dramatic
reductions in turnover along with the Lidl supermarket and both of these stores are
important in maintaining and enhancing the vitality and viability of the town centre.
We are therefore unable to conclude that the scheme complies with Policy EC5 of
the Core Strategy and paragraph 26 of the NPPF‟.
The applicants, having considered the audit from the Council’s appointed retail
consultant, stated that they disagreed with the conclusions reached by the Council’s
appointed retail consultant and submitted letters suggesting inaccuracies had been
made in reaching those conclusions.
Having considered this further submission from the applicants, the Council’s
appointed retail consultant provided some further observations, a copy of which is
available to view at (Appendix 7).
The Council’s appointed retail consultant noted that the figures used within his
original audit were based on those provided by the applicant and therefore by
criticising his audit they were, in effect actually criticising their own submissions.
Therefore having considered carefully the further response from the applicant the
Council’s appointed retail consultant went on to conclude that „We…reaffirm our view
that the Applicant‟s comments have not altered our conclusion on the significance of
the potential impact on the town centre which on the Applicant‟s own analysis rightly
includes the trade diversion from both Sainsbury‟s and Lidl. In our opinion the impact
is likely to be significantly adverse given that the town would lose almost one third of
its total trade in 2016. We do not believe that the Applicant has demonstrated why
the effects „on the ground‟ would not be significantly damaging with little analysis of
the consequences of reducing the town‟s turnover by the scale envisaged‟.
Officers support the conclusions of the Council’s appointed retail consultant in
respect of overall retail impact on the vitality and viability of North Walsham town
centre.
SUMMARY OF RETAIL MATTERS
Officers have concluded that, at the time of writing this report, there was no
sequentially preferable site closer to the town centre that was known to be available,
suitable and viable for retail development comparable in scale and kind to that
proposed on the Marrick’s site. Whilst developer interest in the sequentially
preferable Paston College Lawns site has recently emerged and an offer has been
submitted to the College for consideration, it is not known whether the site will be
made available by the College. Therefore, whilst the Paston College Lawns site has
been considered previously by the Council to be potentially viable and suitable for
retail development, at this moment in time and based on previous views expressed
by the College, Officers have assumed the site is unlikely to be made available and
the site is likely to have to be ruled out in sequential terms. Committee will be
updated if this position has changed.
In respect of impact it is considered that a store of the size currently proposed would
be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability North
Walsham town centre and as such it will be important to consider whether the
identified significant impacts can be appropriately mitigated which will be important
for the long term interests of the Town Centre.. If the impacts cannot be appropriately
mitigated in accordance with the requirements of the CIL Regulations then Officer
advice to the Committee would be to refuse the application.
In respect of impact mitigation, the Council’s appointed retail consultant indicated
within his further observations that „Although we have concluded that this level of
impact is likely to be incapable of being mitigated by town centre improvements or
other measures, we accept that this is ultimately a matter for the Council to
determine‟.
At the time of writing this report, Officers have sought to try and agree the level of
impact with the applicants. Officers have asked the applicants to accept the impact
findings of the Council’s appointed retail consultant but, the applicant is reluctant to
agree this in writing, choosing instead to ‘agree to disagree’. Officers are the opinion
that it is imperative that the applicants accept that their proposal would have
significant adverse impacts otherwise any decision, particularly one involving
mitigation, remains open to potential legal challenge, in respect of which the
applicant is fully aware.
The applicant has prepared a package of mitigation measures for consideration (a
copy of which is available at (Appendix 8). Any mitigation is likely to be secured
through a S106 Obligation.
Having considered the proposed package of mitigation, the Council’s appointed retail
consultant is of the opinion that the mitigation falls well short of what may be required
to mitigate the identified significant adverse impact. Officers concur with this view.
The applicant has been made aware of the inadequacy of their mitigation and the
Committee will be updated orally if the proposed mitigation package is substantially
amended.
HIGHWAY SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY
The applicants have submitted a Transport Assessment with the proposal and have
indicated that the proposed development would be served by a new vehicular and
pedestrian access off Cromer Road. This would comprise a new ghost-island priority
junction onto Cromer Road and would replace existing access facilities onto Bradfield
Road. Access to Bradfield Road would still be maintained but is intended to be
accessed off the proposed new supermarket entrance.
The applicants propose the provision of bus stops on both sides of Cromer Road
together with a pedestrian refuge in the centre of Cromer Road. The applicants also
propose to allow a Community Bus to directly access the site and a dedicated on-site
bus lay-by is proposed.
Pedestrian and cycle access would be provided via a dedicated access adjacent to
the proposed petrol filling station and within the site to the store entrance. In respect
of accessibility on foot and using existing pedestrian facilities, the application site is
approximately 1.2km (3/4 mile) from the edge of the primary shopping area of North
Walsham. The town centre is not directly visible from the proposed supermarket site
until pedestrians walk approximately 1km up Cromer Road and past the traffic light
junction of the A149/B1145 (from where the church tower of St Nicholas in the centre
of the town becomes visible).
The applicants propose to provide a footway on Cromer Road outside the store of 3m
in width to provide shared pedestrian/cycle access. This would taper down in width
where it meets existing footways. The applicants also propose to provide a hard
dressing to a currently unsurfaced pedestrian footpath between Queensway and
Greens Road so as to enable improvement of pedestrian links to the store from a
southerly direction.
The applicants propose to provide 412 vehicle parking spaces (including 19 parent
and child spaces, 18 disabled spaces and 25 staff parking places), together with 3
motorcycle and moped spaces and 16 cycle spaces for customers. Having
considering the proposal the Highway Authority has commented:
„Whilst the application site is remote from the town centre and much of the residential
areas of North Walsham, the distance is less than is the case with the permitted
Waitrose development.
Whilst there is little opportunity for modal shift to cycling, the proposal makes
provision for bus stops on Cromer Road, close to the store, and for the community
bus to enter the store complex; the latter aspect will be the subject of S106
discussions. The intention to improve the link from Queensway to Greens Road
would enhance walking to the store from the south-western quadrant of the town, but
it is difficult to understand how this can be achieved without significant impact upon
the environment.
It is proposed to provide 412 parking spaces at the store, which exceeds the Core
Strategy parking standard by 14 spaces.
Five junctions in North Walsham have been assessed as part of the study. The
modelling indicates that the only junction which will operate over capacity, albeit
minimally, is the junction between the store access and Cromer Road. This occurs
during the Friday pm peak and involves left turn movements leaving the store; this is
not considered to be a problem. All other junctions will continue to have adequate
reserve capacity, although there will be less at the signal controlled junction between
the A149/Cromer Road/B1145.
The assessment is considered robust and demonstrates that the highway network is
capable of catering for the development traffic.
The lack of accident cluster sites indicates that there is no need for any accident
remedial work on the surrounding highway network.
Access to the application site is to be taken from Bradfield Road and the junction
between this road and Cromer Road is to be provided with a ghost island right turn
facility. These aspects have been the subject of safety audit and any issues arising
from the audit are capable of being addressed at the design stage, if the proposal is
consented.
The Highway Authority considers that the proposal satisfies the criteria set out in
NPPF.
Consequently, if your Council is minded to grant consent, please include…conditions
and informatives‟.
Having considered the comments of Norfolk County Council Highways, North
Walsham Town Council had raised some concerns (highlighted below in bold) in
relation to access and highway safety in respect of which the Highway Authority
responded (comments in italic)
1. Is Cromer Road wide enough to provide the three lanes of traffic needed for
the ghost-island right turn? - The carriageway of Cromer Road will be widened
to accommodate the ghost island right turn facility.
2. What happens if more than eight vehicles want to turn right into the store
will this not block the free flow of the Cromer Road? - The data does not
indicate that a queue of 8 or more vehicles will occur.
3. In addition what if people want to turn right out of the store – will this not
block/ slow down people leaving the store? - A twin lane exit is to be
provided. Right turning vehicles will have to await an opportunity to enter Cromer
Road, as happens at Waitrose exit.
4. At busy time would people not be tempted to rat—run around Bradfield
Road to avoid queues and how would that be discouraged? - NCC proposed
closure of Bradfield Road to prevent rat-running, but this met with opposition from
the Town Council and was dropped as a consequence!
5. What happens at busy times when Waitrose and the Magic Kingdom
scheme are all also operational? - The network will continue to function.
6. At busy times, is it not likely that any buses serving the development would
get stuck on site in traffic queues when trying to leave? - Having no
knowledge of the hours of operation of the community bus, I cannot comment
other than to note that the Transport Assessment does not highlight problems
occurring.
7. With a single-point of access, what would happen if there was an incident at
the garage (e.g. a fire) how would people leave the site? - It is imagined that
the PFS manager would open the tanker exit for the emergency services.
Officers are aware that discussions between the applicants and North Walsham
Town Council continue to take place regarding highway safety concerns.
In respect of highway safety considerations, the Committee needs to have in its mind
the advice contained within paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework
which states, amongst other things, that „…Development should only be prevented or
refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development
are severe‟. Given that the Highway Authority has not raised an objection to the
proposal and on the basis that there is no other sequentially preferable site closer to
the town centre that is available, suitable or viable, Officers would advise against
refusal on highway safety grounds provided that appropriate conditions and
informatives are attached in the event that the Committee is minded to approve the
application.
Subject to the imposition of conditions and completion of a S106 Obligation as
required by the Highway Authority, the proposal is considered to comply with
Development Plan Policies CT5 and CT 6.
S106 OBLIGATIONS
The legislation providing local planning authorities with the powers to enter into legal
(Section 106) agreements with applicants, often referred to as planning obligations,
so as to regulate the use and development of land which might involve payment of a
financial contribution for off-site works, is set out in the Community Infrastructure
Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (para. 122) and restated in the National Planning Policy
Framework published on 27 March 2012. The guidance indicates that planning
obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
directly related to the development; and
fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
The Council also has its own adopted policy which sets out the approach to be taken
to secure financial contributions, in certain circumstances, to offset any potential
impacts of development.
In respect of the proposed development and the possible requirement to enter into a
S106 Obligation, whilst the Council’s appointed retail consultant has suggested that
the level of significant adverse impacts on the vitality and viability is „likely to be
incapable of being mitigated by town centre improvements or other measures‟ he
nonetheless accepts ‘that this is ultimately a matter for the Council to determine‟.
The level of mitigation required to address the identified impacts is likely to be
unprecedented within this District and there remains an element of doubt as to
whether the business model of the applicant would be capable of securing the
degree of mitigation to address those identified impacts. Officers remain firmly of the
view that the Local Planning Authority has a clear role to act in the wider public
interest and, with this in mind, the financial gain for the applicant in selling the land
with planning permission for a supermarket should not be at the expense of North
Walsham town centre. It is therefore imperative that the right level of mitigation is
secured, especially as there is only one opportunity to do so in relation to this
development.
A list of possible mitigation proposals has been submitted by North Walsham Town
Council and these together with other appropriate mitigation can be considered, but
only on the basis that they comply with the CIL Regulations.
The applicant has prepared a package of mitigation which has been submitted to the
Council for consideration (a copy of which is available at (Appendix 8)). Any
mitigation is likely to be secured either through S106 Obligation or Unilateral
Undertaking,
Having considered the proposed package of mitigation, the Council’s appointed retail
consultant is of the opinion that the mitigation falls well short of what may be required
to mitigate the identified significant adverse impact. Officers concur with this view.
The applicant has been made aware of the inadequacy of their mitigation and the
Committee will be updated orally if the proposed mitigation package is substantially
amended.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
The closest residential properties are those located on Suffield Close and Cromer
Road. Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 Suffield Close have a direct boundary with the site, as does
Worstead Lodge on Cromer Road.
Officers consider that the main impacts on adjacent residents from the proposed
development would be in relation to noise from vehicles (deliveries and shoppers)
and also from shoppers on site as they go about their business. It is not considered
that the proposal would give rise to any overlooking or overbearing impact concerns.
This is because the supermarket building itself would be approximately 27m away
from the boundary of the nearest property and more than 40 metres away from actual
dwelling houses. In addition the applicant has pitched the roof of the supermarket
away from residents and the closest point of the supermarket would have a height of
approximately 4.5m at this point.
However lighting to buildings and the car park is one aspect that could give rise to
concerns for residential amenity, but only if lighting is poorly designed and allowed to
spill onto neighbouring land.
Other neighbouring land along the western, northern and southern boundaries of the
site is in commercial or agricultural use and the proposal is therefore unlikely to give
rise to substantive amenity impacts.
Responses from the Environmental Protection Officer suggest that, if permission is
granted, a number of planning conditions would need to be imposed including
restricting hours of delivery, lighting, details of any mechanical ventilation or extract
equipment to be installed and details of proposed methods of demolition of the
existing buildings in order to prevent nuisances from dust.
Subject to the imposition of conditions the proposal is considered to comply with
relevant Development Plan policy.
DESIGN
In respect of design matters, the site is located well outside the town centre and is
surrounded by a mixture of commercial, retail and agricultural uses. The existing
buildings on the site include a derelict former residential property and commercial
buildings. Officers are of the opinion that there is no overriding or strong prevailing
design character within the immediate area from which to draw.
The proposed supermarket building would have a rectangular footprint with a
frontage width of approximately 91 metres, a depth of approximately 61 metres and a
maximum height of 11.7 metres (front entrance). An enclosed service yard
measuring approximately 25 metres x 65 metres would also be provided on the north
western side of the building. The store would be constructed from a range of
materials including brick and flint, timber posts and louvred panels, composite
insulated panels, standing seam metal roof (to pitched sections) and membrane
covered flat roof.
A petrol filling station is proposed at the front of the site which would enable 12
vehicles to use the filling station at the same time. A kiosk of approximately 90
square metres is also proposed. The kiosk building would have curved walls made of
brick and flint with a height of approximately 4 metres. The canopy above the petrol
filling station would measure approximately 14.5 metres x 21 metres with a ceiling
height of 4.7 metres and a maximum overall height of 5.6 metres
In considering the proposal the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
raised concerns about the design of the supermarket building and the petrol filling
station as set out within his consultation reply.
The applicant has responded to the criticisms of the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager and a letter was submitted outlining why they have made
certain decisions.
Having considered the views of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
and the response from the applicant, it is considered that a pragmatic approach
should be taken in respect of design in this case. Whilst one might conclude that the
design lacks local distinctiveness, the Committee should be aware that there are no
historical precedents for a supermarket building of this size (this would be the largest
supermarket in the District). Whilst it may be preferable to have the building sited
adjacent to the road, the shape of site does not readily allow for this and the
applicant would have to purchase the adjacent builders merchant in order to make
this happen.
They key test is whether the proposal should be refused on design grounds
(assuming all other matters are satisfactorily addressed). Ultimately it is a matter of
judgement for the Committee in weighing the public benefits of the proposal against
any negative design points. Given the clear steer from central government to Local
Planning Authorities to get Britain building and to generate jobs and wealth, refusal
purely on grounds of poor design may be difficult to defend. The Committee may
have to accept that building is in essence a ‘box’ dressed with some vernacular
materials. To pretend it is anything other than a machine for shopping would be
architecturally disingenuous and the key is to ensure that the best quality materials
are used in the buildings and surfaces.
On balance, whilst the concerns expressed by the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager are respected, it is considered that refusal on design grounds
alone would be difficult to substantiate. As such, subject to the imposition of
conditions to secure the use of high quality external materials, the proposal is
considered to comply with Development Plan policy relating to design.
SUSTAINABILITY
In consideration of the proposal against Core Strategy Policy EN 6, subject to the
imposition of conditions to secure a BREAM rating of ‘Good’; the use of sustainable
drainage systems for disposing of roof water and water from the highway and parking
and a condition to secure 10% of the energy required by the development to be
secured from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon energy sources, the
proposal is considered to comply with Development Plan policy
IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY
The application was accompanied by a Biodiversity/Habitat Report, prepared by
Aurum Ecology Ltd. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
indicated that the survey was undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist at an
appropriate time of year.
Based on the advice of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager, subject
to the imposition of conditions to secure mitigation, the proposal would accord with
relevant Development Plan policy.
LANDSCAPE
In respect of landscaping considerations, the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager has noted that „the Landscaping Report [submitted as part of the
application] comprised a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) prepared
by Greenwillows Associates and a Management Statement. This assessed the likely
effects of the proposed retail store and petrol filling station on the existing landscape
resource and the range of visual receptors within the study area. The study has been
prepared in accordance with the guidelines set out [by the] Landscape Institute and
the methodology, magnitude and sensitivity criteria have been defined‟.
Having considered the proposed development and suggested mitigation, the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has raised concerns that landscape
mitigation will not adequately preserve or enhance the character and quality of the
area and, as such, do not meet the requirements of Policy EN4. The applicant has
been made aware of these concerns.
Ultimately it is a matter of planning judgment for the Committee as to whether any
adverse landscape impacts associated with this proposal can be adequately
mitigated or whether there are any other material considerations which would
outweigh these concerns.
It is considered that it may be possible to add further landscaping within the site but
this would require the potential loss of parking spaces to make way for planting
areas. There is potential scope for this to happen, particularly as the Highway
Authority has indicated that the proposal has 14 parking spaces more than is
required by the Core Strategy parking standards. However this would not necessarily
address the concerns about the starkness of the entrance and boundary treatment
next to the proposed petrol filling station but again this is a matter which could be
resolved by way of planning condition to seek further landscape planting.
Whilst it is certainly desirable to secure an appropriate degree of landscaping in order
to satisfactorily merge the development with its surroundings, ultimately it is a matter
of planning judgment for the Committee in weighing the benefits of the proposal
against any dis-benefits. Refusal based on lack of appropriate landscaping would
certainly not be recommended by Officers. Suitably worded planning conditions
would be the most appropriate way to resolve this matter and to try and deliver the
best solution within the space available. On balance, subject to the imposition of
conditions, the proposal would generally accord with relevant Development Plan
policies.
FLOOD RISK & DRAINAGE
The site is not located within a flood risk area but, given the size of the site,
consideration needs to be given to surface water flooding risks and this is an issue
that has been raised by residents living of Suffield Close. Following discussions
between the applicant and the Environment Agency, a revised surface water
drainage strategy, prepared by ASD Engineering and dated 7 November 2012 was
submitted. Based on these revised details, The Environment Agency have confirmed
that the proposed development would not give rise to significant flood risk concerns
subject to appropriate drainage systems being utilised. These can be secured by
appropriate conditions.
Anglian Water have raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions to
ensure the use of sustainable drainage systems.
Therefore subject to these conditions the proposal would accord with Development
Plan Policy EN 10.
CONTAMINATION
In respect of contamination, the applicant has submitted a Phase 1 Desk Study
report.
The Desk Study report indicates that potential sources of contaminants have been
identified for the site, associated with its former uses, particularly in the southern and
central parts, that may pose a risk to controlled waters. It therefore recommends that
an intrusive investigation is undertaken to determine the extent of any potential
contamination within the soil and groundwater.
Some intrusive investigations were previously undertaken and whilst these
investigations did not identify any levels of contaminants that would appear likely to
pose significant risk to controlled waters, the Environment Agency have noted that
the chemical testing carried out so far is considered insufficient to make conclusions
regarding ground contamination. Further investigation is therefore recommended to
be undertaken.
The Environment Agency has noted that the extent of the investigation undertaken in
the main area of concern (associated with the former Marricks Wire Rope Premises
in the southern part of the site) was very limited, with the chemical testing of soil from
only one sampling location. Further investigation is therefore required, particularly in
this area, including beneath any on-site structures, such as buildings and hard
standing following their removal.
Given the potential contamination issues associated with the site’s redevelopment, to
ensure it is subject to adequate investigation, assessment and remediation as may
be necessary for the protection of controlled waters, the Environment Agency have
requested conditions are appended to any approval granted.
Subject to the imposition of conditions to secure the remediation of any
contamination in the event that contamination is found, the proposal would accord
with Development Plan Policy EN 13.
OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
It is a matter of planning judgment for the Committee as to whether or not there are
material considerations either in favour or against the proposal which would justify a
departure from adopted Development Plan policies.
In this case, the National Planning Policy Framework is a material consideration to
which the Committee should afford appropriate weight.
In addition to the retail guidance set out within the Framework at paragraphs 24, 26
and 27 and the ministerial advice issued by Rt Hon Greg Clark MP concerning
Planning for Growth, as highlighted above, the Committee is entitled to give weight to
the economic benefits of the proposal with reference in particular to paragraph 18 of
the Framework which states: „The Government is committed to securing economic
growth in order to create jobs and prosperity…‟.
In this regard the applicant has indicated that the proposal would directly create 250
new full-time/part-time jobs. Whilst the employment and prosperity prospects
associated with the proposal are a material consideration to which some weight can
be attached, Officers are of the view that the provision of jobs associated with this
proposal would not be sufficient in itself to override the need for adequate impact
mitigation. This is because the proposal would be likely to result in a net loss of jobs
in the town centre following the loss of one third of trade for the town centre, as
identified by the Council’s appointed retail consultant.
Impact mitigation will be necessary to ensure, amongst other things, that a strategy
for the town centre can be developed and this may well be predicated on the basis of
a transition to a predominantly service function for the town centre, combined with a
regeneration strategy. Without securing appropriate levels of mitigation, Officers are
of the opinion that the development would have a seriously harmful impact on North
Walsham town centre, particularly if levels of footfall and resultant loss of trade
occurs as predicted following the opening of the Marrick’s store.
SUMMARY
The proposed development seeks the erection of an A1 retail food store with a gross
floor area of approximately 5,600 square metres (60,000 sqft) with net sales areas of
approximately 3,623sqm (approx 39,000sqft) using the National Retail Planning
Forum (NRPF) definition of net sales area.
The proposal also includes the provision of petrol filling station at the site entrance
together with the provision of a new vehicular entrance off Cromer Road comprising
alterations to Bradfield Road.
The proposed store is considered to be in an out-of town location and, in respect of
compliance with the sequential test, subject to confirmation that the sequentially
preferable Paston College Lawns site remains unavailable, it is considered that the
Marrick’s proposal on the Cromer Road site is the closest site to the town centre that
is available, suitable and viable to accommodate a store of the size proposed.
In respect of impact, having considered the available evidence the Council’s
appointed retail consultant considers that the proposal would be likely to have a
significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of North Walsham town centre.
As such, the proposal could only be considered acceptable in planning terms subject
to a package of appropriate mitigation measures to address the identified significant
adverse impacts.
The applicant has prepared a package of mitigation which has been submitted to the
Council for consideration (a copy of which is available at (Appendix 8)). Having
considered the proposed package of mitigation, the Council’s appointed retail
consultant is of the opinion that the mitigation falls well short of what may be required
to mitigate the identified significant adverse impact and Officers concur with this view.
In all other respects, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposed
development is considered to be compliant with Development Plan policy.
Therefore, based on the package of mitigation submitted at the time of writing this
report, Officers are of the opinion that approval of the application could not be
supported, particularly as the package of mitigation is well short of what would be
required to offset the identified significant adverse impacts of the vitality and viability
of North Walsham town centre.
CONCLUSIONS
The recommendation to Committee is dependent upon a number of scenarios:
SCENARIO A) In the event that the Paston College Lawns site is considered to be
available, suitable and viable in sequential terms, Officers would advise that the
application be refused on grounds that there is a sequentially preferable site closer to
the town centre that is considered to be available, suitable and viable for retail
supermarket development comparable in scale and kind to that proposed at the
Marrick’s site on Cromer Road.
In addition, the reasons for refusal outlined in Scenario B) may also apply.
SCENARIO B) In the event that the Paston College Lawns site is not considered to
be available in sequential terms but appropriate mitigation has not been provided to
offset the identified significant adverse impacts on the town centre, Officers would
advise that the application be refused on grounds that the proposed development
would have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of North Walsham
town centre and the applicant has failed to properly mitigate the identified impacts.
Having considered all the available evidence it is considered that there are no other
material considerations that would justify the clear departure from Development Plan
policy.
SCENARIO C) In the event that the Paston College Lawns site is not considered to
be available in sequential terms and appropriate mitigation has been provided to
offset the identified significant adverse impacts on the town centre, Officers would
advise that the application be approved under delegated powers subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions including those set out by consultees and subject
to completion of a S106 Obligation to secure an agreed package of mitigation and
subject to a S278 Agreement to secure required off-site highway improvements
works.
At the time of writing this report, the package of mitigation submitted by the applicant
is considered to be wholly inadequate to address the identified significant adverse
impacts and, on that basis, the recommendation has to be one of refusal for the
reasons outlined under Scenario B above. Currently, the position of Paston College
remains unresolved in respect of the future of their Lawns site. If the College do
decide to make their Lawns site available for development of a supermarket of
broadly the same size as that proposed at the Marrick’s site then the reasons for
refusal outlined under Scenario A above would also apply.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to refuse, subject to the outcome of information
concerning the availability of the Paston College Lawns site and to the
possible inclusion of an additional reason for refusal relating to the sequential
test, for the following reason:
The proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the
vitality and viability of North Walsham town centre and the applicant has failed
to properly mitigate the identified impacts. Having considered all the available
evidence it is considered that there are no other material considerations that
would justify the clear departure from Development Plan policy.