Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a superstore class a1 petrol filling station, car parking, biomass boiler, landscaping and associated works.

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

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet. During the presentation he covered a number of issues, including:

 

·         the history of the market town;

·         the impact the proposed store would have on the vitality and viability of the town centre;

·         the impact the proposed store would have on the heritage assets of Ledbury;

·         issues in respect of transportation and sustainability;

·         the loss of employment land as a result of the application.

Members were advised of an amendment to the second reason for refusal detailed within the Officer’s recommendation of refusal of the application.

 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Conway, representing Ledbury Town Council, and Mr Hadley and Mrs Crowe, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Adenmosun, Mr Ashton and Mrs White, spoke in support.

 

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor PJ Watts, one of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

 

·         The application was a result of two businesses, one national and one local, working together to create jobs in Ledbury.

·         Ledbury had the fastest population growth of any town in Herefordshire.

·         Local residents needed an alternative to the local shopping structure currently available.

·         The sequential testing had highlighted the unacceptable nature of the alternative sites.

·         The lawnside site was currently the location for the fire station, the youth centre and the swimming pool, these would all need to be relocated.

·         The lawnside site would also result in a negative impact on the town centre due to its impact on Bye Street.

·         There were also concerns regarding eh other proposed site from the sequential test as Tesco’s would have to shut down for 2 years during the redevelopment.

·         There was sufficient employment land in Ledbury without the inclusion of the proposed application site. The loss of the employment land was countered by the increased employment as a result of the store.

·         There was no risk of flooding on the site.

·         There was some indication of slow worms on the site although they had not been sighted during the Ecological Survey.

·         The site had good vehicular access.

 

Councillor EPJ Harvey, the other local ward member, also commented on a number of issues, including:

 

·         The application had been debated at length through social media networks as well as views being expressed through more traditional means of petitions and letters.

·         Ledbury was a small market town with a number of independent retailers in the town centre.

·         Local residents expected to travel further afield for their additional shopping requirements.

·         The application needed to comply with planning policies and it clearly failed in a number of areas.

·         The proposes development was too large and was located in the wrong place.

·         The application was no different to the Tesco’s application which was recently recommended for refusal and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant.

·         The granting of the application would result in Ledbury’s retail provisions for the next 20 years being fulfilled in one development.

·         No town in the Country has survived similar developments unharmed.

·         The quoted figures included people travelling to Ledbury from Hereford, this would not happen due to the adequate provision of supermarkets in Hereford.

·         In 2011 the Planning Inspector dismissed an appeal for a fast food kiosk on the homebase car park as he considered it would have a harmful effect on the viability and vitality of the town centre.

·         The proposed application could also threaten a number of heritage buildings in the town centre.

The Committee had concerns in respect of the reference to the existing Tesco supermarket site suggested in the sequential test and referred to in the Principal Planning Officer’s presentation. It was felt that there could be an accusation of bias as the site was owned by a rival supermarket and therefore could be viewed as giving them an unfair advantage. The case officer reminded the committee that the Tesco site had been identified in the applicant’s own sequential test and had not therefore been put forward by the Council. The Committee also felt that the two sites suggested in the sequential test were not without their own limitations and concerns.

 

The Committee noted that there had been a substantial amount of correspondence from the Ledbury residents and business owners, both in support and objection to the application. Members advised that they had read all of the emails and letters that had been sent to them even if they had been unable to reply to them all individually.

 

Members discussed the possible increase in jobs as a result of the proposed development. It was noted that not all of the jobs created through the application would go to local people as a number of people would be employed from outside of the local area. The discussion also included the possible increase in jobs from the relocation and expansion of Galebreakers, this was also welcomed.

 

In response to a question regarding the size of the proposed store, the Principal Planning Officer advised that it was smaller than the Sainsbury’s store in Hereford and of a similar scale to the Tesco Belmont store.

 

Members discussed the impact an out of town supermarket had on the town of Leominster when approved some years ago. Leominster town centre had benefitted from £11m of European Union funding which had helped to revitalise the town centre, it was noted that this funding would not be available to Ledbury in the current economic climate and that any impact on the town centre could have serious long term repercussions.

 

As the debate continued some Members were of the opinion that the proposed location of the new site would not harm the viability and vitality of the town centre. Some Members were of the opinion that it would however enhance the shopping experience for all of the residents of Ledbury. Other Members of the Committee had a differing view and voiced their Concerns in respect of the impact the proposed application would have on the town centre and in particular the small independent retailers of Ledbury. Members continued to debate whether the benefits of the scheme outweighed the potential harm on the vitality and viability of the town centre.

 

The committee were of the opinion that the local residents and independent retailers as well as the applicant needed a decision and that a deferral of the application would not be welcomed.

 

In respect of the scale of the proposed development, one Members was of the opinion that large supermarkets could easily become self-contained destinations. It was possible to get food, clothes, lottery, newspapers and white goods from one location without the need to visit the town centre.

 

Members felt that it would not be possible to produce suitable conditions to address the concerns raised in respect of the impact the application could have on the town of Ledbury. One Member stated that in their opinion the application was the wrong development, on the wrong site, at the wrong time.

 

Members noted the Localism Act, which gave great weight to the views of the local residents. It was however noted that it was more difficult in this case due to the apparently even split between the supporters and the objectors to the application.

 

In response to a number of questions the Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that the sequential testing had been carried out in accordance with central government advice and had looked at appropriate sites in the area. He advised the Committee that the application had been considered consistent of the national and local planning policies regarding out of town developments.

 

In response to a question regarding the discrepancy in the population figures quoted for Ledbury he advised that the population of the Ledbury Ward was approximately 10000 but that the catchment area was larger and had been quoted as between 15800 and 21500 in the two different reports submitted by Jonas Drivers Deloitte, for the Council, and Turley’s for the applicant.

 

Councillors PJ Watts and EPJ Harvey were given the opportunity to close the debate. They reiterated their opening remarks and made additional comments. Councillor Watts’ additional comments included:

 

·         That both Turley’s and Jonas Drivers Deloitte’s reports stated that the sequential test had been followed.

·         The local community needed to be represented.

·         Ledbury needed to evolve and change to survive [amended at Planning Committee meeting of 14 March 2012].

·         The application should be approved.

Councillor Harvey’s additional comments included:

 

·         There was no objection to change but the proposed application would result in disproportionate, ill timed change.

·         The 160 small businesses in the town centre would be at threat if the application as approved.

·         The application should be refused.

Prior to the vote being taken on the application the Head of Neighbourhood Development advised the Committee that the wording of condition 2 had been amended in the Members’ Update Sheet.

 

RESOLVED

 

That Planning Permission be refused on the following grounds:-

 

1.         The Local Planning Authority do not consider the submitted sequential assessment to be robust and as such is considered to be contrary to the Central Government advice contained within Policies EC15 and EC17 of Planning Policy Statement 4 and policies S5, TCR1, TCR2 and TCR9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

2.         The local planning authority consider that the expenditure capacity and impact assessments forming part of the planning application fails to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact upon the viability and vitality of Ledbury Town Centre contrary to the Central Government advice contained within Policy EC17 of Planning Policy Statement 4 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 Ledbury Conservation Area contrary to the Central Government advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 5 and policy S7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

4.         The proposal including the petrol filling station, would result in the loss of high quality employment land contrary to the Central Government advice contained within Policy EC2 of Planning Policy Statement 4 and policies S4 and E5 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

5.         The location of the proposal in an unsustainable location is such that it would  increase reliance upon the private motor vehicle contrary to the Central   Government advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 1, Planning Policy Statement 4, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 and policies S1, S5, S6, DR2 and DR3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

6.         The submitted Flood Risk Assessment contains inadequate information to  demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that there would not be an increase in flood risk and as such the proposal is considered to be contrary to the Central Government advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 25 and policy DR7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

7.         The presence of protected species in the form of slow worms has been established. Insufficient habitat will be retained on the site for reptiles so the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant includes translocation of the reptiles to a suitable receptor site. Such a receptor site should be close to the application site, within Herefordshire, have suitable reptile habitat and ideally no existing populations of slow worms. The submitted application fails to identify a suitable receptor site. The submitted planning application cannot be approved without a suitable receptor site having been identified as in the absence of a suitable receptor site being identified, the Local Planning Authority are unable to establish whether translocation is a suitable mitigation strategy. In addition, the application does not include a suitable legal mechanism to secure translocation to an identified suitable receptor site together with long-term protection and monitoring of the receptor site. As such the proposal is contrary to the Central Government advice contained within Circular 06/2005, Planning Policy Statement 9 entitled ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation and policies NC1, NC6, NC7, NC8 and NC9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

8.         The proposed development would necessitate a planning obligation (which complies with the criteria set out in the Supplementary Planning Document on 'Planning Obligations' which was adopted in April 2008) securing contributions towards sustainable transport infrastructure (including enhanced pedestrian and cycle links to the Ledbury Town Centre), to mitigate against the impact of the development together with the requisite legal costs in preparing such an Agreement and the requisite monitoring costs .  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).

 

9.         The proposed enhancement of the landscape buffer with associated biodiversity benefits to the rear of the proposed retail store does not lie within the planning application site area and as such a planning condition could not secure its provision. Furthermore no other legal mechanism is provided by the applicant to secure this landscaping. In the absence of this landscaping, it is considered that the continual horizontal mass and expanse of the building is such that it would have an adverse impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of numbers 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44 and 46 Bronte Drive, contrary to Policies S2, DR2, LA6 and NC7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

Informative:

 

1.         For the avoidance of any doubt the documents to which this decision relates are:-

 

1)         Letter dated 28th Oct from Turley Associates received 31st October 2011

2)         Draft Heads of Terms received 31st October 2011

2a)       Existing Site Plan / Red Line Boundary - Drawing PL-01 received 31st October 2011

3)         Existing Site Layout – Drawing No. PL-02 received 31st October 2011

4)         Existing Elevations – Drawing No. PL-04 received 31st October 2011

5)         Existing Site Sections – Drawing No. PL-03 received 31st October 2011

6)         Proposed Site Plan – Drawing No. PL-10 received 31st October 2011

7)         Proposed Ground Floor Plan – Drawing No. PL-11 received 31st October 2011

8)         Proposed Roof Plan – Drawing No. PL-12 received 31st October 2011

9)         Proposed Elevations – Drawing No. PL-13 Rev A received 2nd February 2012

10)       Proposed Sections – Drawing No. PL-14 Rev A received 2nd February 2012

11)       Proposed Boundary Sections – Drawing No. PL-15 Rev A received 2nd February 2012

12)       Proposed Site Sections – Drawing No. PL-16 Rev A received 2nd February 2012

13)       Proposed Part Bays – Drawing No. PL-17 received 31st October 2011

14)       Sainsbury’s PFS – Drawing No. 2592/20 received 31st October 2011

15)       Sainsbury’s PFS – Drawing No 2592/12 received 31st October 2011

16)       Sprinkler Tank & Biomass Boiler details – Drawing No PL-20 received 7th December 2011

17)       Trolley Bay Shelter Details – Drawing No. PL21 received 7th December 2011

18)       Tree Survey Schedule received 31st October 2011

19)       Tree Survey Plan – Drawing No. 900-01 Revision B received 31st October 2011

20)       Tree Removal, Retention & Protection Plan – Drawing No. 900-02 Revision B received 31st October 2011

21)       Outline Landscape Proposals – Drawing No. 900-03 Revision D received 31st October 2011

22)       Inter Car Park Tree Pit Detail – Drawing No. 900-04 received 31st October 2011

22a)     Pedestrian Walkway Tree Pit Detail – Drawing No. 900-05 received 31st October 2011

23)       Statement of Community Involvement received 31st October 2011

24)       Design & Access Statement received 31st October 2011

25)       Planning Statement received 31st October 2011

26)       Economic Assessment 7th November 2011

27)       Employment Land Study received 31st October 2011

28)       Transport Assessment received 31st October 2011

29)       Interim Travel Plan received 31st October 2011

30)       Service Yard Management Plan received 31st October 2011

31)       Noise Impact Assessment received 31st October 2011

32)       Air Quality Assessment received 31st October 2011

33)       Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Assessment received 31st October 2011

34)       External Car Park Lighting Statement received 31st October 2011

35)       Landscape Statement received 31st October 2011

36)       Ecological Assessment received 31st October 2011

37)       Pan Brown Associates Phase 1 Desk Study received 31st October 2011

38)       Flood Risk Assessment received 31st October 2011

39)       Archaeological & Cultural Heritage Desk – Based Assessment received 31st October 2011 received 31st October 2011

40)       Application Form received 31st October 2011