Agenda item

P141281/O Land at Southern Avenue, Leominster, Herefordshire, HR6 0QF

Site for Class A1 Foodstore with petrol filling station.

Decision:

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

Minutes:

(Site for class a1 foodstore with petrol filling station.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs V Mifflin, representing Friends of Leominster/Leominster Town Centre Action Group spoke in objection.  Mr K Nutter, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors JM Bartlett and PJ McCaull, the local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor Bartlett commented on a number of issues including:

·         The site had no connectivity with the Town and was unsustainable, increasing reliance on car use.

·         The proposal entailed the loss of employment land.  It would set a precedent, changing the site from an industrial estate to a retail park.  It would mean the loss of three small businesses providing 30 jobs paying higher wages than those which would be paid by the supermarket.

·         The development would have an adverse effect on the town centre.  The Deloitte report described the town centre as vulnerable.  It estimated the development would take £5m from the centre, £3m of which would be from small shops which operated on small margins.

·         The Aldi and Co-op supermarkets in the town centre were crucial in generating linked trips.

·         Shop closures would lead to decline putting at risk the listed buildings in the centre.  Policies designed to protect these buildings should be upheld.  Policy S7 and the National Planning Policy Framework supported action to safeguard the Leominster conservation area.

·         The Town had a significant tourist trade which would be adversely affected if the centre went into decline. 

·         The Town had suffered decline in the 1990s when the first out of town supermarket had been established.  The impact of the proposed development on retail trade in the town centre was of the greatest concern.

Councillor McCaull commented on a number of issues including:

·         The industrial estate was really a business park and already included several retail uses. 

·         The supermarket would provide 200 jobs.  Leominster needed part time jobs.

·         The site did have footpath access to the Town centre.

·         Vehicle access to the site was good and it was easily reached by residents from Ludlow to Hereford via the A49.

·         The applicant had offered to fund a bus service from the site to the Town for years.

·         The site was not at risk of flooding.

·         The Section 106 agreement would bring benefits.  However, if the application were approved he requested that the Town Council be consulted on priorities for S106 funding.

·         He requested that the Committee support the proposal.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The development would bring £9m to the Town through the S106 agreement with a further £1m in community benefits.

·         The development would provide retail choice and the proposed bus service provided the opportunity for shoppers to visit the town centre making linked trips.

·         Out of town stores accessible by cars were necessary.

·         It was to be hoped that more diverse shops would emerge in the town centre in response to the development.

·         The town centre already had a lot of interesting shops. 

·         The industrial estate was a business park with a variety of uses. It was unrealistic to expect heavy industry to flourish in the area.  Small and medium sized businesses would develop.

·         The Committee was not obliged to make a choice between the two supermarket applications before it.  It had to consider each application on its merits.

·         The report set out substantial grounds for refusing the application. In particular concern was expressed about the adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre.

·         The concerns raised by the Committee in refusing the application in January 2014 had not been addressed.

·         There wasn’t connectivity with the town centre.  A hopper bus would not adequately address this issue.  There would be an adverse impact on the small shops, risking a spiral of decline.

·         It had taken Leominster a number of years to recover from a previous out of centre supermarket development.  It was questioned whether there really was capacity to support another out of centre development.

·         The development would adversely affect the exiting town centre supermarkets which were a part of the shopping mix.

·         It was questioned whether there really was an absence of alternative sites in the town centre.  It was also suggested that with the closure of public houses there was an opportunity to develop some smaller convenience stores.

·         The Unitary Development Plan and the NPPF focused on a town centre first approach.

·         Sequential testing identified alternative sites as set out in paragraph 6.10 of the report. 

·         Paragraph 6.14 of the report stated in relation to the Mill Street and Southern Avenue that it was concluded there was little material difference between the two sites in terms of connectivity to the town centre.

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

Councillor Bartlett reiterated concerns about the vulnerability of the town centre.  She considered there were alternatives within the centre.

Councillor McCaull noted that alternative sites referred to in the report were on existing car parks which the town needed to retain.

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

1.

The Local Planning Authority does not consider the submitted sequential assessment to be robust and as such is considered to be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S5, TCR1, TCR2 and TCR9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

2.

The application site is remote from the town centre and the proposed food retail store would become a destination in its own right with shoppers unlikely to visit the town centre to make linked trips.  The proposal is therefore likely to have a detrimental qualitative impact upon the vitality and viability of Leominster town centre contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S5, TCR1, TCR2 and TCR9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

3.

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

4.

The proposal would result in the loss of good quality 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 the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S4 and E5 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

5.

The proposal is considered to be in an unsustainable location that would increase reliance upon the private motor vehicle, contrary to the guiding principles of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S1, S5, S6, DR2 and DR3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

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 has been clearly identified within the reasons for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

Supporting documents: