PRALS – Executive Summary of objections to planning application 2006/2003
PRALS Objections to Penistone Town Centre
Redevelopment
Penistone Residents Against Large Supermarkets (PRALS) is a group of concerned
residents who object to the development proposed in Planning Application 2006/2003
made by Dransfield Properties in Penistone.
The objections arise from:
 organising a well attended public meeting
 speaking to retailers, market traders and residents
 carrying out traffic and parking surveys
 carrying out a survey of retail employment
 collecting anecdotal evidence from residents in other towns affected by large
supermarket developments
 Analysis of the planning application and supplemental document submitted by
Dransfield Properties.
Our findings show that there are major deficiencies in planning application
2006/2003.
PRALS supports the redevelopment of Penistone, and is not against the expansion of
retail facilities in the town centre per see, but wants any development to complement
existing trade and economic activity. PRALS believes that this could be achieved
through a smaller scale supermarket, in conjunction with the construction of a number
of independent retail units, with the entire development being focused around the
further development of the existing market. PRALS fully supports a process that
brings about a new proposal that enhances local trade, in full consultation with local
people.
Our main concerns with the current proposal are in relation to:
 A comparison of the proposal with national planning document PPS6
 A comparison of the proposal with the Barnsley MBC’s original planning brief
 The retail impact of the development
 The traffic and parking issues related to the development
 The lack of community consultation with regards to the development.
Our objections can be summarised as follows.
In relation to national document PPS6:
i.
the development will work against the long term health of the market
ii. the development will reduce genuine choice within Penistone town centre
iii. the scale of the development is inappropriate
iv.
a sequential approach to site selection has not been demonstrated
v. the development does little to encourage growth in the local economy.
In relation to the Barnsley MBC planning brief:
i.
the supermarket is larger than the maximum size specified
ii. the car park is smaller than the minimum size specified
Page 1
07 March 2016
PRALS – Executive Summary of objections to planning application 2006/2003
iii.
iv.
v.
no attempt has been made to provide facilities for buses even though this is a
principle objective in the planning brief
the supermarket building does not conform to the guidelines outlined in the
planning brief in terms of building style or choice of materials
an area of green space will be lost to this development, and this area exceeds
the boundaries identified in the planning brief.
On the retail impact of the development:
i.
the applicants have failed to supply data to show that the proposed Tesco store
will provide economic benefit to Penistone and district and in particular to
protect the current retail provision including the popular retail and farmers’
market.
ii. the applicants have failed to provide sufficient information on the full range of
current retailing of convenience and comparison goods within the primary
and secondary catchments for Penistone and the likely impact of the proposed
Tesco store.
iii. the applicants have failed to assess the value of the local food economy in
Penistone
iv.
the applicants have failed to provide any data on the extent of the current
Penistone Thursday and Saturday markets and the monthly farmers’ market.
v. the applicants have failed to provide convincing evidence of the extent to
which the proposed Tesco store will draw customers from outside the primary
and secondary catchment areas.
vi.
the applicants have failed to provide detailed, up-to-date analysis of current
shopping habits in the primary and secondary catchments taking into account
recent changes in retail provision including internet shopping.
vii.
the applicants have failed to assess the impact of the proposed floor space for
comparison shopping within the proposed store on other Penistone retailers.
viii. the applicants have proposed just one approach to retail development in
central Penistone without considering other ways to distribute the floor area
said to be required to meet convenience and comparison shopping demand
within the catchment area.
ix. the height of the proposed store should be restricted to prevent the subsequent
construction of a mezzanine floor within the fabric of the store thus allowing
for the possibility of the sales area to be expanded in the future.
On the traffic and parking impact of the development:
i.
the size of the car park is inadequate for the number of trips that will be
generated as a result of the development, meaning that the car park will overcapacity for most of each weekday.
ii. the size of the car park is only just adequate for the existing users of Penistone
Town Centre.
iii. the base traffic census data ignores residential developments that have taken
place in Penistone since 2005.
iv.
the base TRICS data used in the traffic assessment is likely to underestimate
the number of trips to/from the development, and a tolerance value must be
added to the figures quoted.
v. the traffic redistribution affect around Stottercliffe Road suggested in the
traffic assessment, is negated by an opposite redistributive effect.
Page 2
07 March 2016
PRALS – Executive Summary of objections to planning application 2006/2003
vi.
vii.
viii.
the allocation of development trips to the local road network, as proposed in
the assessment, has been performed in an arbitrary manner. A more realistic
assignment of trips to the road network changes traffic flows considerably.
the traffic signals at the junction of Bridge Street are near capacity, and this
development will result in them reaching the saturation point.
the resultant effect of these inconsistencies in the traffic assessment is that
there is a high likelihood that the Bridge Street corridor will become severely
congested as a result of this development.
On the lack of community consultation:
i.
there has been a lack of real community consultation within the Penistone area
ii. in relation to this application only the consultation process initiated by
Dransfield properties is now being considered, and other earlier consultation
exercises are being ignored.
iii. The methodology used by Dransfield in its consultation exercise is not
objective and contains serious flaws.
___
Based on our research and the evidence presented in our objection we recommend
that Barnsley MBC reject planning application 2006/2003, and request that the
developer works on a revised application which takes into account the concerns we
have raised.
PRALS
19th January 2007
For further information on our objections to this proposal and our ideas for the
sustainable redevelopment of Penistone town centre, contact:
Pete Riley, PRALS Secretary,
50 South Yorkshire Buildings,
Silkstone Common,
Barnsley,
S75 4RJ.
Email: pete@phonecoop.coop
Tel: 01226 790713
Page 3
07 March 2016