Outline application for the part demolition of existing buildings and structures and development of the site to provide a retail store (Use Class A1) and associated works and improvements including access.  Amended Plans.

The application was refused, contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Outline application for the part demolition of existing buildings and structures and development of the site to provide a retail store (use class a1) and associated works and improvements including access. Amended plans.)

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.

He commented that there were two applications before the Committee for convenience goods stores in Leominster.  Similar proposals had been refused by the Committee on 8 January 2014.   The Town Centres Study update demonstrated that Leominster had capacity for additional convenience goods floor space and this had been confirmed by Deloitte’s independent advice on the retail impact assessment submitted by the applicant. 

The Committee needed to consider the respective merits of each application.  It was not bound to find in favour of one application or the other.

The Committee was advised to have regard to paragraphs 26 and 27 of the National Planning Policy Framework which provided that where an application failed to satisfy the sequential test or was likely to have significant adverse impacts it should be refused.

He highlighted proposed changes to the conditions in the recommendation as set out in the update that had been circulated to the Committee.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Ellis spoke on behalf of Leominster Town Council in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr J Verity, Chairman of the Leominster Civic Society, spoke in objection.  Mr S Hoare, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors FM Norman and Brig P Jones, the local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor Norman commented on a number of issues including:

·         The Committee had had strong grounds for refusing the previous application.  The new application was for a smaller development and no longer contained a petrol station.  The grounds for refusal otherwise remained.

·         Concerns about the risk of flooding remained high.  The flood risk assessment accompanying the application was desk based.  There had been no survey and local knowledge had not been sought.  A photograph showing the site under water in Christmas 2012, a state in which it had remained for 2 weeks, had not been made available to the Committee.  The Flood Risk Assessment report was therefore inaccurate in stating that there was no evidence of surface water on the site.  She noted that it was proposed that the floor level of the store was to be elevated to prevent flooding of the store itself. The flood risk assessment also focused on the risk of fluvial flooding and did not take account of flash flooding and the resulting surface water.  It also did not consider what might happen if the flood risk increased.

·         The access to the site remained problematic.  Network rail had initially responded that an access was not feasible unless a bridge was constructed.  The rail crossing would be closed for approximately 17 minutes every hour (one quarter of the day).  In the report to the Committee in January 2014 officers had stated that the proposal would increase the frequency of queuing traffic along Mill Street.  This remained an issue.

·         There was concern that although the current application was for a smaller development than the previous application the outline plan suggested that a future application may be made to increase the size.

·         The Town Centre needed to be safeguarded and the development’s impact upon it also remained a concern.  Pedestrian access from Mill Street to the Town was not easy.  The development would divert trade not provide additional trade.  The applicants themselves estimated that there would be a £2m trade loss for the Town.  The retail reports for the Council identified the potential risk to the Town Centre.

·         The concerns about the impact on the conservation area also remained relevant. 

·         She did not accept that there were no viable alternative sites. No consideration appeared, for example, to have been given to expanding the two existing supermarkets in the town centre.

·         Having regard to the NPPF and the Unitary Development Plan the application should be refused.

Councillor Jones commented that he supported the development, which would provide competition to the benefit of the Town.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The rail upgrade referred to at paragraph 4.6 had been put back.  The railway crossing would be closed for an increased time representing a significant period of time each hour.  This would lead to frustration, traffic problems, and increase the risk of misuse of the crossing.  High speed trains went through the crossing and there had to be considerable concerns about safety. 

·         There would be increased queuing of traffic compounding the existing congestion.

·         Clarification was sought about a consultation exercise underway on making Mill Street a clearway.  The Development Manager commented that the proposal was being made at the request of West Mercia Police in response to traffic generated by car boot sales at Brightwells and was not related to this application.

·         A member referred to representations received from Brightwells expressing concerns about the risks of flooding both to the business and to Leominster as a whole and read their submission to the meeting. 

·         It was noted that the floor level of the supermarket was to be raised to avoid the risk of it flooding.  However, there was no mention of the potential impact on neighbouring properties.  It was stated that insurers were refusing to renew the insurance of a number of surrounding properties because of the flood risk.  Consideration had to be given to the risk that flooding events would increase in frequency.  The report stated that “the northerly part of the site is prone to ponding during periods of prolonged and extreme rainfall events.”

·         It was unrealistic to suggest that people would walk or cycle to the Town Centre having shopped at the supermarket.  Most shoppers would wish to take perishable goods straight home.  Linked trips were unlikely.

·         If there was capacity for additional convenience goods floor space it was questioned why existing stores in the Town Centre could not compete for this market.

·         Reference was made to the damage that had been caused to the Town Centre by a previous out of town supermarket development and the investment and time that it had taken to promote a recovery.

·         It was suggested that regard needed to be had to the timeframe for development of additional retail capacity.  The assessment of demand took account of housing development and employment opportunities that had not yet been secured in the anticipated timescale. This had a bearing on the potential impact on the Town Centre of a new retail development at this time.

·         It was acknowledged that increased competition can be a benefit in terms of choice and pricing.

·         The provision of only £20k in the S106 agreement for flood defence was questioned, noting that some £6m had been provided for the Asda store development in Hereford City.  The Development Manager confirmed that £20k was the sum requested by the Environment Agency.

·         Food stores operated to tight margins and there had to be concern that the new development would gain trade at the expense of other retailers.

The Development Manager commented that the application proposed to provide a storage tank to store water to accommodate rainfall.   He also observed that the application refused in January had been for a much larger store.  This had led to officers removing their objections. He reminded the Committee of the sequential testing conclusions and noted the observations that had been made on the vitality and viability of the Town Centre, whilst reiterating that officers had concluded that there was capacity for additional convenience goods floor space.  He acknowledged the traffic issues that had been raised.  However, he cautioned against citing flooding issues as a ground for refusal.

The debate concluded at this point.

(The meeting adjourned between 11.25 and 11.35. Following the adjournment the Committee debated the application relating to land at Southern Avenue Leominster.  The Committee then returned to consideration of the Mill street application.)

The local ward members were given the opportunity to close the debate on the Mill Street application.

Councillor Jones commented that Leominster needed a new supermarket and the Mill Street proposal was the better option.

Councillor Norman reiterated that the flood risk and traffic issues were major concerns with the application.  The impact on the Town Centre and small shops was also relevant. 

It was moved that the application should be refused on the grounds that had formed the basis of the previous refusal as set out at paragraph 3.1 of the report paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5.

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 Leominster 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.

Informative