Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a Class A1 retail foodstore, car parking, new access road, landscaping, associated works and change of use of Overross Garage Showroom Building to Class D2.

The application was refused in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a Class A1 retail foodstore, car parking, new access road, landscaping, associated works and change of use of Overross Garage Showroom Building to Class D2.)

(Councillors Cutter, Durkin and Hardwick declared non-pecuniary interests.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs C Utting, of Ross-on-Wye Town Council spoke in support of the Scheme in principle, subject to conditions.  Mr P Quinn, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr G Sutton, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

Whilst the majority of the site was in the Ross East Ward a small portion was in the Ross West Ward.  In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors AM Atkinson, CM Bartrum and PGH Cutter, three of the four local ward members, spoke on the application.  It was noted that the fourth local ward member, Councillor RL Mayo, was unable to do so because he had a disclosable pecuniary interest.

Councillor Atkinson commented on a number of issues including:

·         He and his fellow ward member Councillor Cutter had made considerable efforts to gauge local opinion.  He praised the constructive way in which residents had approached and considered the application.

·         The effect on the viability of the Town Centre was a significant consideration.  On balance his view was that those people who shopped in the Town Centre would continue to do so rather than shop in a supermarket.  The development would therefore not damage existing shops in the Town Centre but would offer more choice to those who wished to shop in a supermarket

·         A petrol station had initially formed part of the plans but had been withdrawn.  There had appeared to be public support for the competition that would have provided.

·         An Aldi store was under construction in the town.  It would have been helpful to have been able to assess the impact that had before considering an application for a further supermarket.

·         The Morrisons store was overtrading and many felt that it was not a pleasurable shopping experience.  There was some popular support for another supermarket.  However, there were also people opposed to the application.

·         Account needed to be taken of the new housing developments in Ross-on-Wye.

·         He was not aware of any other suitable sites for a supermarket within or on the edge of the Town Centre.  This meant that any future applications would have to be for an out of Town store.

·         He was sceptical of the number of jobs it was claimed the new store would generate, noting the possible impact on the Morrisons Supermarket.

Councillor Bartrum made the following principal points:

·         He supported the application, subject to conditions.

·         The viability and vitality of the Town Centre was important.  In his view those who shopped in independent stores would, however, continue to do so.  The Tesco store would be in competition with Morrisons providing choice for residents and visitors.

·         The proposed development was close to and had connectivity with the Town Centre.  It was preferable to an out of town store.

·         The site might be classified as employment land but it provided little employment and was an eyesore.  Eight businesses used the site providing 20 jobs compared with the 175 full time equivalent (fte) jobs that the proposed development would provide. 

·         The Model Farm site also offered 10 hectares of employment land and there were no applicants for it.  He did not consider that there was a shortage of employment land in the area.

·         He did not consider there was any negative effect on heritage assets.

·         In conclusion he considered there were the following key benefits:  175 fte jobs, 300 car parking spaces (which should be free for up to 3 hours whether or not the person shopped at the store), a boost to the local construction industry, increased competition in the supermarket sector, and significant Section 106 contributions.

·         He supported the conditions proposed by Ross-on-Wye Town Council as set out in paragraph 5.1 of the report to protect the health of the Town Centre.

Councillor Cutter commented that he would not reiterate the points made by the previous two speakers. He made the following principal points:

·         The development offered increased choice.

·         He was concerned about highway safety and the traffic implications for Overross and the five ways roundabout.  It was necessary to ensure a safe route to school for pupils and if the proposal were to proceed local ward members should be involved in discussions to achieve this aim.

·         A Section 106 agreement had not yet been submitted.  If the development proceeded benefits for Ross-on-Wye must be secured.

·         The effect of the Aldi development would need to be assessed.

·         He commented that in his view the site had the potential for residential development, although that was not before the Committee for consideration.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The imposition of a condition restricting the percentage of non-food goods that could be traded from the new store was discussed.  It was suggested that as the argument being advanced was that Tesco would be in competition with Morrrisons any restriction should be comparable.  A suggestion was made that a restriction to 20% would be appropriate.

·         The Principal Planning Officer commented that conditions to restrict the extent to which supermarkets could trade in convenience goods were not uncommon, a restriction to 25% being comparable with other supermarkets.  If the application were to be approved this could be discussed further with the applicant’s agent and local ward members. He acknowledged that the applicant’s agent argued that the store would not have an effect on the Town Centre.  However, it was important to note Deloitte’s view was that the applicant’s assessment underplayed the potential effect on the Town Centre, noting that the trading figures quoted for convenience goods sales density was significantly lower than the company average. The Legal Officer commented that any such conditions restricting trading could not be overly prescriptive or restrictive but were enforceable.

·         It was proposed that officers be authorised to approve the application and that details be finalised in discussion with local ward members.

·         Housing development in Ross-on-Wye of some 900 homes would generate demand.

·         Concern was expressed about highway safety issues at the ‘five ways junction’, and the A40/A9 roundabout which would be created by the new development and increased by new housing and the model farm development.

·         Pedestrian safety needed to be addressed.

·         The current and future implications of internet shopping needed to be taken into account.

·         The Economic Development Manager had expressed concern about the loss of employment land.

·         The number of jobs it was claimed the development would create needed to be treated with some caution.  Those jobs that were created by supermarkets tended to be low paid, part-time and did not create wealth. The development should be treated as job neutral.

·         The independent advice provided by Deloitte concluded that there was an oversupply of convenience goods floor space in the Town.  

·         Any detriment to shops in the Town Centre would lessen the Town’s attractiveness to visitors.

·         There was evidence that Supermarkets on the edge of towns or out of town had an adverse effect on town centres.

·         The effect on local supply chains also needed to be considered.

The Development Manager commented that there were no objections to the proposal on highway grounds. The effect of the development on the vitality and viability of the Town Centre was the key issue.  Officers considered that in their professional opinion it would have an adverse effect.

The local ward members were given the opportunity to close the debate.

Councillor Atkinson commented that it was clear that there were a number of factors to consider. In conclusion, the public support for the store and the increased choice it would provide needed to be weighed against the view expressed in the Deloitte report that it would have a detrimental impact on the Town Centre.

Councillor Bartrum welcomed the content of the debate.

Councillor Cutter commented that the view within the Town was divided.  He remained concerned about the highway safety issues and the potential impact of large corporations.

A motion that officers be authorised to approve the application and that details be finalised in discussion with local ward members was lost.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact upon the viability and vitality of Ross on Wye Town Centre contrary to paragraph 26 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S5, TCR1, TCR2 and TCR9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

2.         Given reason for refusal 1 above, the Local Planning Authority consider that the proposed development would be likely to adversely affect the character of the Ross on Wye Conservation Area contrary to paragraphs 128 to 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy S7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

3.         The proposal would result in the loss of existing employment land. The applicant has not demonstrated that there is a surplus of such land or that removal of the existing use from the site would give rise to substantial benefits to residential or other amenity issues. Furthermore, the proposal is not a minor or incidental activity associated with another use that is compliant with policy.  The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policies S4 and E5 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

4.         The proposed development would necessitate a planning obligation compliant with the criteria set out in the Supplementary Planning Document - 'Planning Obligations' to secure contributions toward sustainable transport infrastructure, including enhanced pedestrian and cycle links to Ross on Wye Town Centre, to mitigate against the impact of the development.  A completed Planning Obligation has not been deposited and as such the proposal is contrary to Policy DR5 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007 and the Council's Supplementary Planning Document entitled 'Planning Obligations' (April 2008).

Informative:

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations and identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant.  However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which have been clearly identified within the reasons for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

(The meeting adjourned between 11.30 am and 11.40 am)