APPLIC REF NO 2012/540/ST
DATE RECEIVED
16/11/2012
CASE OFFICER
Graham Wraight
DATE OF EXPIRY
15/02/2013
WARD
Oakham
WARD COUNCILLOR
Cllr Kate Allsop
APPLICANT
LEGAL & GENERAL PROPERTY LIMITED
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LAND AT MANSFIELD LEISURE PARK, PARK LANE,
MANSFIELD NG18 1BU
HYBRID PLANNING APPLICATION: PART FULL APPLICATION
FOR THE ERECTION OF THREE RESTAURANT UNITS (USE
CLASS A3), WITH ASSOCIATED SERVICE YARD AND CAR
PARKING.
PART OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR THE
ERECTION OF A HOTEL (USE CLASS C1) AND ASSOCIATED
WORKS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE PERMISSION
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND APPLICATION SITE
This planning application is a ‘hybrid’ application which seeks full planning
permission for the erection of three Class A3 restaurants at ground floor level
and outline planning permission for a hotel above. It is proposed that the
restaurants would have an internal floor space of 1022 square metres and the
indicative internal floorspace of the hotel is given as 2184 square metres.
The site is positioned within the existing Nottingham retail/commercial park
between the multiplex cinema and Walker bingo. It is bounded by the Quarry
Lane nature reserve to the north to which footpath access is available from
the car park. Access is via Park Lane which links onto the main arterial A60
Nottingham Road.
The application is referred to Planning Committee as it is a Major planning
application.
RELEVANT SITE HISTORY
2011/0471/PR – 60 BED HOTEL AND THREE RESTAURANTS – No formal
response sent but advised as to parking requirements and need to undertake
sequential test.
OBSERVATIONS RECEIVED
Throughout this report observations received in respect of each application
are presented in summary form. The full letters and consultation responses
received, including details of any non-material planning observations, are
available for inspection both prior to and at the meeting.
Anyone wishing to make further comments in relation to the application must
ensure these are received by the Council by 12 noon on the last working day
before the date of the Committee.
1)
Nottinghamshire County Council Highways
Comments will be reported at the meeting.
2)
Planning Policy
Objects – does not accept that there are no suitable or available sites
within the town centre; would be a missed opportunity for the town
centre and direct footfall away from it.
3)
Environmental Health Manager
No objection
4)
Urban Regeneration Coordinator
Disappointed that the proposal is not for a site in the town centre as it
would increase the diversity of the offer to the public.
5)
Nottinghamshire Police Architectural Liaison Officer
No objection
6)
Western Power Distribution
Existing cables will need diverting
7)
Severn Trent Water
No objection subject to a condition
8)
Members of the Public
One letter of support has been received from a member of the public
and this is summarised as follows:


Investment is much needed
Ensure that local spend stays in Mansfield
Five letters of objection have been received from members of the
public and these are summarised as follows:


















Should be in the town centre – need more restaurants in the town
centre
This will take people away from the town centre
Hotel not needed
Hotel may not be built
Increase in traffic
Will put nature reserve in shadow
Cause anti-social behaviour
Food outlets not required
Litter
Not consulted on the application
Inadequate car parking
Noise
Increased light
Building will have little soundproofing
Obstructs entrance to nature reserve and will disturb wildlife
Community impact review should be undertaken
Open space aspect review required
More suitable sites are available
The Friends of Quarry Lane object to the proposal and query whether a traffic
audit, a community impact review or an open space aspect review have been
undertaken and consider that there are other suitable sites in Mansfield ie
hospital site, brewery site, old Volvo garage etc
A letter has been received from Councillor Richardson stating the application
doesn’t show a real confidence that the hotel part will be built. It is contended
that the restaurant part is not needed, but a hotel is needed. The restaurants
shouldn’t be built without the hotel as it would take trade from a struggling
town centre.
A letter of objection on behalf of the owners of the Four Seasons Shopping
Centre has been received and this is summarised as follows:







As the application is hybrid in form there is no means to secure that the
hotel is delivered.
There are several reasons why the hotel is unlikely to be constructed,
in particular the ability to be able to build a hotel above existing units at
a later date
Application should be made as a full application
The hotel would not be dependent upon the restaurants to provide
breakfast and evening meals
The application fails the sequential test, in terms of the hotel and
restaurant combined and the restaurant use alone
Would jeopardise the regeneration of the town centre
Town centre sites are available




Appeal decisions provided with the application are not directly
comparable.
Will cause harm to the vitality and viability of the town centre
Not as sustainably located as the town centre
Jobs would still be created if the development was in the town centre
A letter of objection on behalf of Mansfield Business Improvement District
(BID) has been received and this is summarised as follows:








The proposal could be accommodated in the town centre as required
by the sequential approach
Vacant units are available in primary and secondary frontages
There is potential for a town centre cinema and family dining cluster to
develop
Allocated sites are available in the town centre
No assessment on the impact upon the vitality and viability of the town
centre have been provided
Will jeopardise investment in the town centre
The Mansfield Retail and Leisure Study 2011 identifies a need to
improve the evening economy and this application will make it
impossible to realise that aspiration
Approving the application will undermine the work of Mansfield BID
and result in a lost opportunity over the short to medium term to deliver
centrally located proposals that benefit the town centre
POLICY & GUIDANCE
National
National Planning Policy Framework
National
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – sets out the Government’s
planning policies and requires that a presumption be given in favour of
sustainable development, which includes building a strong and prosperous
economy. The Framework states that sustainable development can be
delivered in a number of ways, including by building a strong, competitive
economy, ensuring the vitality of town centres, promoting sustainable
transport and by requiring good design. A core planning principle of the NPPF
is ‘Ensuring the vitality of town centres’ and the NPPF states that applications
that fail to satisfy the sequential test should be refused.
Mansfield District Local Plan
Saved Policy DPS2 (28/09/07) – This policy aims to ensure development is
concentrated in the most sustainable locations.
Saved Policy BE1 (28/09/07) – This policy aims to ensure developments
achieve a high standard of design.
Saved Policy LT20 (28/09/07) – States that planning permission will be
granted for the development of hotels providing that a number of criteria are
met.
Saved Policy M16 (28/09/07) – Sets out the criteria that new developments
need to meet in relation to the highway network.
The Mansfield Retail & Leisure Study 2011 – looks at the District's current
retail and leisure provision to highlight the scale and nature of any changes
that will be required to meet the future needs of the district (over the next 15
years).
The Mansfield District Local Plan 1998 identifies the site as being within the
defined urban boundary.
ISSUES
The issues for consideration are:








The principle of the development
Emerging Local Plan
Planning application type
Design, appearance and layout
Impact upon residential amenity
Highway matters
Impact upon the Quarry Lane Nature Reserve
Other matters
The principle of the development
The development proposed is three A3 restaurant units with a hotel above. All
of these are defined as ‘main town centre’ uses by the National Planning
Policy Framework and therefore should be located within defined centres,
such as Mansfield town centre, unless there are no suitable, available or
viable sites. The NPPF also states that applications that fail to satisfy the
sequential test should be refused
The applicant has submitted two separate sequential tests which assess a)
whether the restaurants alone and b) whether the combined hotel and
restaurants development could be accommodated on existing town centre
sites/premises. The conclusion of their sequential tests is that there are no
suitable, available or viable sites for either form of development to take place.
However, having considered these conclusions in conjunction with Planning
Policy, it is not considered that the applicant’s sequential tests adequately
demonstrate that there are no such available sites with Mansfield town centre
for restaurant and/or hotel development. In particular, Planning Policy
considers the following with regard to the proposed restaurants:
‘The sequential assessment has not considered any units within the Primary
Shopping Area (PSA) despite Saved Policy MTC5 (which restricts non-A1
uses within the PSA) being superseded by the NPPF, and there being a
number of material considerations in favour of granting planning permission.’
…and the following comments which are equally applicable to a proposal for a
combined hotel and restaurant development or standalone restaurant and/or
hotel developments:
‘The assumptions about footfall not being strong enough in the town centre
are not accepted. The operational parameter stated by the applicants is
250,000 visitors per annum, however, the Four Season’s Shopping Centre
(within the town centre) attracts over 8 million visits per year, and the addition
of three restaurants such as proposed is likely to further increase footfall
during the evening. In addition to this, the Palace Theatre and Mansfield
Museum on Leeming Street attract over 200,000 visitors per year between
them.’
‘The applicant’s case that the ‘restaurants only’ proposal is not large enough
to anchor the major developments planned for Stockwell Gate North and
South is not accepted and it is also not clear whether the applicants have
contacted the landowners to enquire about the progress of any larger
proposals and possibilities for a combined development.’
…and in conclusion:
‘In summary, it is considered that the applicants have not been able to prove
that there are no sequentially preferable sites for this proposal, in whole or in
part…
It is also considered that if planning permission is granted for this proposal it
will result in a significant missed opportunity for investment in the town centre,
and mean the footfall associated with these uses will be directed away from
the town centre with no potential for linked trips. As the BID have highlighted
in their letter, the proposal would not benefit the town centre in any way, and
would be counterproductive to the aims of the BID which (in partnership with
the Council, town centre businesses and other stakeholders) exists to help
strengthen the retail and leisure offer within the town centre, increase footfall
and enhance vitality and viability. It would also go against one of the
recommendations of the Mansfield Retail and Leisure Study 2011 which
stated that the evening economy should be developed by providing middlemarket restaurant facilities to help attract visitors into the town centre in the
evening.’
Furthermore, if the Council accepts the conclusions of the applicant’s
sequential tests, then this would effectively be an acceptance by the Council
that there are no suitable, available or viable sites for a restaurant operator of
the type mentioned (a national chain) within the town centre. It would also be
an acceptance that there are no such sites for either a hotel and restaurant in
combination or a standalone hotel development within the town centre. This
would be an explicit acceptance that sites such as Stockwell Gate North,
Stockwell Gate South and White Hart are not suitable, viable or available for
the developments described. This in turn would create a precedent which
would allow other restaurant and hotel operators to argue that there is no
potential for such developments in the town centre and that they should be
permitted out of town, to the further detriment of the vitality and viability of the
town centre.
It is also noted that two major town centre stakeholders, Mansfield Business
Improvement District (BID) and the Four Seasons Shopping Centre object,
primarily on the basis that they consider that the proposal would have an
adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre. In particular,
Mansfield BID considers that the current proposal would jeopardise
investment in the town centre and ‘would not benefit the town centre in any
way, shape or form’. Furthermore, Mansfield District Council’s Urban
Regeneration Coordinator expresses disappointment that the proposal is not
for a site in the town centre.
It should also be noted that whilst the proposal would deliver jobs, the same
jobs could also be delivered in a town centre location.
The Mansfield Retail & Leisure Study 2011
The main purpose of this study was to look at the district's current retail and
leisure provision and to highlight the scale and nature of any changes that will
be required to meet the future needs of the District (over the next 15 years).
Therefore in terms of the current proposals this study and its findings are a
material planning consideration. The following findings are of particular
relevance to the current application:
‘In terms of restaurants and cafes, we have identified previously that for
Mansfield to effectively function as a higher-order centre throughout the day –
i.e. outside of retail trading hours – it needs to develop its ‘dwell time’
economy. The current offer is geared towards bars, pubs and nightclubs,
which means in the early evening, there is currently little reason to visit the
town centre.’
…and;
‘There are opportunities within a number of the extant planning permissions
for development in Mansfield town centre to accommodate an element of
leisure floorspace. We consider that there is a clear need for more restaurants
in Mansfield town centre to enhance the evening economy. There is also likely
to be need arising for additional cinema facilities over the course of the study
period, and it is recommended that any future provision in this respect is
located in Mansfield town centre.’
…and;
‘The focus on improving the leisure offer in the District should reflect the
following priorities:
•In the short term, attract more restaurant operators to the town centre, in
order to counter the current over-provision of drinking establishments.
Applications for such developments in the district centres should also be
supported.
• In the longer term, examine the feasibility of bringing forward a cinema
development to meet this qualitative shortfall and the likely need for additional
facilities which is likely to arise over the study period.’
Therefore, the current proposals would also compromise the
recommendations of the Mansfield Retail & Leisure Study 2011 in terms of the
improving the restaurant offering in the town centre and in turn the attraction
of the centre in the early evening.
Whilst some restaurant operators do operate from town centre and out of
town locations in one area, no evidence has been submitted that the
proposed restaurant occupiers would provide a town centre restaurant in the
future.
Emerging Local Plan
On 30th July 2013, Full Council considered the strategic policies that would
form part of the new Local Plan and all of the strategic policies were
unanimously accepted. This included Preferred Core Policy 2B (Hierarchy for
Town Centre Uses) which prioritises town centre sites on a sequential basis
and Preferred Core Policies 10 and 11 which reference key development sites
including Stockwell Gate North, Stockwell Gate South and White Hart, all of
which could accommodate the restaurants and hotel.
Although the above policies can only be given limited weight due to the stage
that the Local Plan work is at, they clearly demonstrate the emphasis that
Council is putting on the regeneration of the Mansfield Central Area/town
centre. Furthermore, it is considered that these strategic policies fully meet
with the objectives of the NPPF. The current proposal is in an out-of-centre
location, which is not a priority area for development. A decision to grant
planning permission would therefore go against the policies and priorities that
the Council recently approved.
Planning application type
The application has been submitted as a ‘hybrid’ of a full planning application
for the restaurant units and an outline application for the hotel. This led to
concern that the hotel element of the proposal would in fact not be brought
forward. The applicant has however now indicated a willingness to enter into a
Section 106 Planning Obligation to ensure that the restaurant units cannot
begin trading until such time as the hotel has been completed. Whilst this
would ensure that the development was delivered as a whole, it does not
overcome the issues raised previously in this report.
Design, appearance and layout
The proposed building is located between the existing Odeon Cinema and
Walker Bingo buildings and backs onto the Quarry Lane nature reserve. The
front elevations of the proposed restaurant units would be predominantly
glazed with steel columns, cladding, a canopy and timber boarding. The hotel
is in outline form and therefore only indicative details have been provided;
these show a further two storeys about the ground floor and it is considered
that a design and use materials could be secured that would be appropriate in
the context of the existing leisure park.
Impact upon residential amenity
The nearest dwellings are located on Quarry Lane and Stanley Road but are
situated a substantial distance away from the site. It is not considered that
either the proposed restaurants or the hotel would cause harm to residential
amenity by reason of their size, location or operation.
Impact upon the Quarry Lane nature reserve
The proposed development would be located immediately adjacent to a local
nature reserve however the existing access to this area would be retained.
The part of the nature reserve closest to the site is at a slightly higher ground
level and although the proposal could cause some overshadowing it is not
considered that this would have any significant effect upon the nature reserve.
Likewise, it is not considered that the use and operation of the building would
cause harm to wildlife.
Highway matters
Detailed discussions have been undertaken between the applicant and
Nottinghamshire County Council who are the Highway Authority. Following
these discussions the applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution to
allow improvements to the main junction to the leisure park and to monitor a
travel plan. On this basis the Highway Authority does not object to the
proposal and therefore I am satisfied that there would be no harm to the
highway network from the proposed development.
Other matters
There is no statutory requirement for the applicant to engage with the local
community or to provide an open space review and the fact that these have
not been undertaken is not a material planning consideration. Consultation
was undertaken by letter to the businesses immediately adjacent to the site
and by the display of two site notices and a press notice. There are no
residential properties in close proximity to the site and therefore no neighbour
notification letters were sent directly to properties. The fact that litter could be
generated by the development cannot be given any significant weight in the
design making process. There is no evidence to support the claim that
restaurants or hotel uses in this location would be likely to encourage antisocial behaviour.
The applicant has submitted some appeal decisions in support of the
proposal, however it is considered that these are not directly comparable as it
is understood that the areas these relate to have a wide variety of restaurants
in their town centres and involved sites that are further away from their
respective town centres.
The applicant has referred to contradictory views from the Council and refers
to an A3 use that was recently permitted at Blockbusters, together with a new
nearby Costa Coffee. However, with respect to Blockbuster, the original
outline planning permissions for Portland Retail Park envisaged that this unit,
and the adjacent unit occupied by Burger King, would be utilised for A3 uses.
The A1 use was also permitted due to the nature of the operation that
Blockbuster undertakes. In respect of Costa Coffee, this use is a mix of Class
A1 and A3 and significantly this use already has a presence in the town
centre.
CONCLUSION
The proposal is considered to be contrary to the objectives of the National
Planning Policy Framework, in particular in relation to the negative impact that
it would have on the vitality and viability of Mansfield town centre. In this
respect, whilst the provision of 3 restaurants and a hotel in Mansfield is
desirable and can be supported in principle, the proposal fails to demonstrate
that the sequential test would be met in terms of suitable, available or viable
town centre sites. Accordingly, it would result in a significant missed
opportunity for investment in the town centre and result in the footfall
associated with these uses being directed away from the town centre.
Whilst the development would be of an acceptable design, appearance and
layout and would not have an adverse impact upon residential amenity, the
adjacent nature reserve or the public highway network, these factors do not
outweigh the significant policy concerns that arise.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS/REASONS/NOTES
(1) Reason for Refusal:
The proposed development would be located on an out of centre site as
defined by the National Planning Policy Framework. The application fails to
satisifactorily demonstrate that there are no suitable, available or viable sites
for the combined hotel and restaurant development or standalone hotel and
restaurant developments in sequentially preferable locations. The proposal
thus fails to comply with the requirements of the sequential approach set out
in Paragraph 24 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to
ensure the vitality of town centres (Core Principle 2).
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT
The Local Planning Authority worked positively and proactively with the agent
to address concern relating to the proposed development. Although this
resulted in some concerns being addressed, it was considered that it could
not be demonstrated that there are no sequential preferable sites on which
the development could take place. On this basis, refusal of planning
permission was recommended.