Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the ... · are shown comprising 18 affordable...

PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED ITEMS- SECTION A

Planning Committee 6 October 2009 Development Control Report

6

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site for a mix of uses including A1 foodstore, other A1-A5 retail space, residential apartments and associated car parking, infrastructure works, servicing and public realm enhancements (Outline - all matters reserved)

Report Item No A1

Ford Garage Site And Adjoining Premises Land Hotel Street Coalville Leicestershire

Application Reference 08/00917/OUTM

Applicant: Case Officer: Joe Mitson Recommendation: REFUSE

Date Registered 27 June 2008

Target Decision Date26 September 2008

Site Location

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ©copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence LA 100019329)



7

1. Proposals and Background Members will recall that this application was originally reported to Planning Committee on 7th April 2009. Members resolved that the application be deferred in order for the applicants to address the additional objections of the Highway Authority in relation to the potential impact of the proposed development on the Memorial Square junction. The applicants have now submitted an additional package of transport information which seeks to address the concerns of the Highway Authority in relation to the impact of the proposals on the Memorial Square junction and lack of on site servicing and car parking provision. In addition, a number of other reports and documents have now been submitted by the applicants and their consultants, including: • A note in relation to the status of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan and in particular saved Policy R8(c). This note seeks to explain why the applicants consider their scheme should be assessed having regard to Policy R8 (c) and PPS 6 and therefore the tests of need and sequential assessment should not apply; • A review of the Belvoir Centre extension application including detailed consideration of the deliverability of the proposal within a reasonable time period; • An assessment of the Belvoir Centre Transport Assessment; • A review of the application of draft PPS4 to the applicants proposals and other proposals within Coalville; and • A note of the expected programme for the completion of the Parkridge/Tesco proposal. This sets out a clear timetable for the scheme’s completion following a successful planning approval; • A response to the Council’s Planning Consultants (Barton Willmore) advice of 16 July 2009 regarding sequential assessment. The full contents of these reports and documents are available for Members to inspect on the case file. Members are also advised that in April 2009, the applicants announced that the operator for the food store on the site would be Tesco. As previously reported, the proposal is in outline and comprises the demolition of existing structures and site clearance, the erection of a foodstore totalling up to 3,252 square metres net floorspace, other retail units (A1-A5) totalling up to 1,400 square metres net floorspace, the erection of up to 63 residential apartments above the retail space fronting Hotel Street, vehicular access from Whitwick Road, a roof top car park with up to 321 spaces, servicing to the rear of the site and public realm improvements to Hotel Street and Whitwick Road. The site currently contains the Ford Motor Sales Garage along with a variety of individual shops and offices along the Hotel Street frontage. The buildings which front onto Hotel Street are primarily two storey with some three storey and the garage building is single storey with extensive areas of surface car parking. All matters are reserved and indicative drawings have been provided detailing a landmark building with a feature five storey tower on the junction of Hotel Street and Whitwick Road, four storey elevations running parallel to Hotel Street with two to four storeys proposed along



8

Whitwick Road. The floor plans indicate two retail units and a restaurant fronting on Hotel Street with the supermarket behind. Over the first to third floors a total of 63 residential units are shown comprising 18 affordable apartments (6 x 1 bed, 12 x 2 bed) and 45 private apartments comprising 6 x 1 bed, 30 x 2 bed and 9 studio apartments. A communal garden area serving the apartments is shown on the first floor adjacent to the roof car park. The supermarket entrance would be at the junction of Hotel Street and Whitwick Road with an inclined moving walkway leading to the first floor car park. Vehicular access for customers and for service vehicles would be from Whitwick Road. The agent has also now stated in a letter supporting the application "We have also discussed the nature of the information submitted in support of the application, the status of the detailed yet indicative scheme drawings and the mechanisms for controlling the extent of development were the application to be approved. I can confirm that the details contained within the Design and Access Statement, together with the detailed indicative proposals submitted with the application, are intended to provide a framework which will steer the detailed design proposals. The indicative scheme provides the development parameters for the detailed scheme. Therefore, for the purposes of according with the Regulations, the dimensions shown on the indicative scheme are the upper and lower limits for height, width and length of the building and the layout shown identifies the approximate location of buildings, routes and spaces." As stated above, a short report in support of the application has now been submitted providing details of the development programme for the Ford Garage site. This states: "Parkridge Development’s involvement in the Ford Garage site began over 3 years ago with initial discussions with the owners of the Ford Garage and discussions with the Local Authority regarding the site’s potential for redevelopment. Parkridge have subsequently worked closely with the Local Authority to establish a high quality, viable mixed use proposal. The pre application process culminated in the submission of an application in June 2008 (now pending determination), for the redevelopment of the site for a mix of uses focussed around the creation of a new foodstore. The proposal has been formulated to bring positive, early change to the health and vitality of the centre, thus creating the investment and retail conditions necessary for other appropriate proposals to come forward to complete the centre’s renewal in accordance with planning policy objectives. Parkridge are a European wide development company with expertise in all sectors of the market. They have a proven track record for the successful implementation of retail led schemes, including town centre regeneration. As a retail developer they have a close working knowledge of retailers’ requirements (towns and locations within them) and of operation requirements. Parkridge progressed the subject site confident that it would be appropriate for a major food retailer and had every prospect of securing planning permission. This position can be contrasted with that of a landowner who will have no opportunity to review locations within a town and identify that which is best fit to meet known requirements and be able to deliver them promptly. As a developer, Parkridge needs to take a shorter term view and be confident that opportunities can be assembled, retailer attracted and permission granted so that funds can be re-circulated into other development programmes. Parkridge have been working closely with Tesco since early this year. Tesco too had the benefit here of being able to assess alternative opportunities for representation in Coalville. As



9

regeneration of the centre is of critical importance, Tesco recognised the need to identify a deliverable site there. During 2008 and early in 2009, Tesco carefully considered the only other location where a food store scheme might have been promoted, i.e. as part of a substantial extension to the Belvoir Centre. We have provided an accompanying paper that explains the delivery dilemas facing that scheme. Suffice to comment here, that Tesco very carefully reviewed that opportunity and came to the informed conclusion that fundamental issues relating to land acquisition, unrealistic expectations of rental values and thus concerns regarding the viability of the scheme, together with a variety of planning and design problems, meant that the scheme might not be deliverable at all and certainly not within a reasonable period of time. It was therefore only after having given detailed consideration to the Belvoir Centre alternative location in Coalville that a lengthy process of assessing the Parkridge application site and application proposal took place. Tesco then entered into a formal contractual commitment with Parkridge in April this year, to occupy the supermarket within the proposed scheme. This was confirmed in writing to the Council at the time. Subject to the grant of planning permission the key development issues have been addressed to ensure the site’s deliverability. All the necessary land has either been assembled or negotiations are in an advanced stage; a high quality, viable scheme has been designed which meets the aspirations of the market; Tesco have committed to the scheme which will ensure its commercial viability and success, and there are no physical, access or other constraints to development which may constrain deliverability. Subject therefore to the resolution to grant of planning permission in July 2009, Parkridge and Tesco’s timeframe is: August 2009 - S106 signed and planning permission issued. August to end October 2009 - Detailed design and submission to the Council August 2009 to July 2010 (or sooner depending on relocation) - Conclude site purchase and assist business relocation where applicable. January-March 2010 - Planning approvals. August 2010 - Demolition and other enabling works commence September 2010 - Main construction works begin September 2011 - Scheme completed" 2. Publicity 91 neighbours have been notified. Press Notice published 22 July 2009 and 9 July 2009



10

Site Notices posted 30 July 2008 3. Consultations County Planning Authority LCC Development Contributions County Highway Authority LCC - Passenger Transport Unit LCC County Archaeologist Environment Agency Leicester City Council Planning Dept Department Of Transport Rail Group National Forest Company Manager Of Housing North West Leicestershire District Council Head Of Street Management North West Leicestershire District Lichfield District Council Blaby District Council Derby City Council NHS Leicester, Leicestershire And Rutland Facilities Consor Severn Trent Water Limited Natural England Police Architectural Liaison Officer Airport Safeguarding Head of Environmental Protection Head Of Leisure And Culture South Derbyshire District Council Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council Charnwood Borough Council Erewash Borough Council Rushcliffe Borough Council North Warwickshire Borough Council David Boyson – NWLDC Conservation Officer NWLDC Development Plans Stefan Kruczkowski – NWLDC Urban Designer Department Of Transport Rail Group HM Railway Inspectorate All the above were initially consulted on 2 July 2008 4. Summary of Representations Received Leicestershire County Council (LCC) Director of Children and Young People’s Service state there is surplus capacity in the local primary, high and upper schools and no education contribution is requested. LCC Director of Highway’s Transportation & Waste Management seeks a contribution towards civic amenity site infrastructure in Coalville. LCC Head of Commercial & Support Services seeks a contribution for library facilities. LCC Highway Authority recommend refusal on the grounds of insufficient off-street car and cycle parking and off-street loading and unloading facilities.



11

Members will recall from the Update Sheet reported to Planning Committee on 7th April 2009 that the Highway Authority had submitted further comments. These were summarised as follows: • The assessment undertaken by Asda is very robust, whereas the assessment undertaken by Parkridge is not. • If members are minded to approve the Parkridge application then the Highway Authority will require them to carry out further work in relation to the modelling of the Memorial Square junction in order to robustly demonstrate that development traffic could be accommodated without having a detrimental impact on the functioning of the surrounding highway network. • It is not clear from the Parkridge report that the existing retail units fronting onto Hotel Street have existing off street parking provision at the rear. The Parkridge application proposes no off street parking provision for the proposed non-food retail units. • The Parkridge report states that "it is considered that there is sufficient scope within the site to provide additional car parking spaces" – the County Highway Authority queries where an additional 180 spaces (max) could be accommodated • The Highway Authority is not recommending refusal of the Parkridge application based on inadequate cycle parking provision. Following the seeking of further clarification of these issues from the County Highway Authority, it confirms as follows: • The County Highway Authority has always recommended that the Parkridge application be refused. When the Transport Assessment was submitted it suggested that the development traffic could be accommodated on the network, although we had concerns about how robust the assessment was. From the significant amount of work carried out by Asda, the County Highway Authority now know that there are problems with the functioning of the Memorial Square junction. In its observations the County Highway Authority requested that if the Planning Authority is minded to approve the Planning Application, that the Highway Authority be re-consulted. If Members are minded to approve the Parkridge application then the Highway Authority will require Parkridge to carry out further work in relation to the modelling of the Memorial Square junction in order to robustly demonstrate that development traffic could be accommodated without having a detrimental impact on the functioning of the highway network. • The County Highway Authority recommends that a further highway reason for refusal be included on the Parkridge application that addresses the failure of the application to demonstrate the impact of the development on the Memorial Square junction. Following the submission of an additional package of transport information, the County Highway Authority has been re-consulted and now raises no objections subject to conditions and Section 106 contributions to encourage sustainable travel to and from the site. The following comments have been received from the County Highway Authority: These comments relate to this planning application. The collective impact of this and other rival planning applications has not been considered. 1. Since the April 2009 Committee the applicant has worked with the Highway Authority and has submitted additional information including: a. A revised layout for the Memorial Square junction including revised LINSIG analysis. b. A revised layout for the proposed service lay-by on Hotel Street to serve the non-food retail units, including supporting documentation justifying its position and design.



12

c. A framework residential travel plan (dated June 2009). d. A framework foodstore travel plan (dated June 2009). e. A draft car park management strategy (un-dated but submitted to the Highway Authority on 29th May 2009, subject to revisions as detailed in an e-mail from Ian Monachino-Ayres to Rebecca Henson dated 28th June 2009. f. Revised residential car parking calculations. g. Additional contributions towards non-car modes. h. Details regarding taxi drop off/pick up point. 2. Section 106 Agreement - In the interests of encouraging sustainable travel to and from the site s106 contributions would be required. It is understood that 19 residential units are to be allocated as non-owner occupied social housing under the terns of any s106 agreement. On this basis the Highway Authority has accepted a reduction in parking provision for the residential element of the scheme in accordance with DCLG document "Residential Car Parking Research”. It is also understood that under the terms of the agreement ALL 35 car parking spaces provided for the 63 residential units will remain unallocated. On this basis the Highway Authority has accepted a reduction in parking provision for the residential element of the scheme in accordance with DCLG document "Residential Car Parking Research". LCC Passenger Transport Unit made no comments. LCC Archaeology has no objection as the desk based assessment is satisfactory and any field work can be carried out post determination. LCC Ecology raise no objection and seek the development incorporates bat boxes and bat bricks into the design of the new property and to plant native trees, common to the area, on site to establish feeding grounds for bats. Leicester City Council Planning Department made no comments. Lichfield District Council made no comments. Blaby District Council has no observations to make. Derby City Council made no comments. South Derbyshire District Council has no observations to make. Hinckley and Bosworth District Council has no comments subject to the application being in conformity with the adopted plans and policies for the area. Charnwood Borough Council has no objection. Erewash Borough Council made no comments. Rushcliffe Borough Council made no comments. North Warwickshire Borough Council made no comments.



13

North West Leicestershire District Council (NWL) Housing seeks a provision of 19 affordable units which is marginally above the 30% figure but the Council round up rather than down. There are currently 267 people of the Council’s waiting list requiring 1 bedroom apartments in the Coalville area, 106 of which are in priority need. In addition there are a further 100 applicants who require 2 bed apartments of which 15 are in priority need. To create a more balanced housing market in the immediate area where there are currently no socially rented properties of this type, seek a 75% rented/25% low cost home ownership split in the affordable units to be provided. A total of 14 social rented units are sought with 10 x one bedroom apartments and 4 x two bed apartments and 5 low cost home ownership units, all 2 bed units. NWL Head of Street Management has no objection and states that on site parking policies, including charges, are consistent with and integrated with the Council’s car parking policies so as to ensure that there is no detrimental effect of the Council’s off street car parking income and on site parking is reserved for users of the facilities on the site including residents. NWL Environmental Protection have no objection, seek conditions relating to a desk top study in order to assess the history of the site, the potential risk of contamination and surrounding and local water resources, where a potential risk is identified a geo chemical intrusive survey shall be carried out to determine whether the site is affected by chemical or gas contamination, should the survey work reveal any contamination a scheme to deal with this would be required. Recommend hours of construction work on the site and that no burning of materials should take place on the site. NWL Leisure and Culture seek a financial contribution to redevelop Hermitage Leisure Centre to include larger spaces for gym equipment, fitness classes and sports provision due to the rising demand on current facilities as well as developing alternative leisure provisions on site. NWL Policy state that there are sufficient grounds to refuse the application given the presence of the sequentially preferred car park site on the basis that the owners of the car park site have stated that the site could be developed with a foodstore within the next 5 years. NWL Design Officer supports the proposal and states that the application offers a potential to secure a good design solution for the site, the development would form a strong visual gateway into the town and provide a landmark, the scheme would contribute positively to establishing a stronger sense of character and identity for the town, the large retail footprint could be successfully integrated into the existing and emerging urban fabric of the town, a positive relationship to the street has been established through a strong and continuous building line and enhanced by active frontages achieved by wrapping smaller scale commercial units around the building’s core function and a welcomed approach to parking and servicing. The scheme would potentially offer benefits in terms of improving the public realm through the provision of wider footways and landscaping, pedestrian access to the commercial units and foodstore is easy and direct, further detailed design work is required for certain aspects of the scheme including the façade to Old Station Close, surface treatment and lighting. NHS Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland Facilities Consortium wish to declare their interests in terms of a future 106 developer contribution. Network Rail has no objection in principle. Given the relatively close proximity of the site access in relation to the Coalville level crossing, in the event of a scenario developing where road traffic is likely to block back onto the crossing as a result of motorists waiting to gain access to or from the development site during and after construction, the Network Rail Signaller may have to commence the barrier lowering sequence to close the crossing to road traffic and pedestrians



14

earlier than normal in order to maintain the train service punctuality. Clear siting of the crossing must be maintained for the construction/operational period. Seek informative relating to work affecting the Network Rail boundary. HM Railway Inspectorate made no comments. Leicestershire Constabulary Architectural Liaison Officer has no objections stating the layout offers benefits to site security as there is good provision to deter unauthorised entry to the development, consideration of the use of CCTV to cover the area should be made especially as there is a single point of vehicle entry to the service yard. Lighting throughout the site should include street lighting to BS 5489 with S3 as a good standard to provide visitors and residents with reasonable security, staff parking should benefit from effective illumination. The perimeter of this development should be enclosed by a retained wall at the adjacent Old Station Close side of the development, this should be 3 metres in height and retained on the Whitwick Road side up to the service yard. Effective lighting and signage will support the car park security though also recommend consideration of CCTV coverage in the event of subsequent criminal activity. All ground floor and easily accessible windows must have key operated locks, where necessary opening restrictive or similar built in mechanisms will be required; all glazing must be laminated to a thickness of 6.4mm. All door sets must comply with PAS 24/1. The standard for all lock cylinders should be to a standard of BSEN 1303 grade 3, incorporating anti drill and pick resistance. A contribution is sought to address the accumulative effects of numbers of housing and commercial developments over a geographical area, increase efficiencies with patrol, detection and prevention of crime, prevent additional vehicle and other resources, extend communication infrastructures, provide CCTV cameras where appropriate, provide new or supplementary buildings and enhance crime reduction. National Forest Company made no comments. Environment Agency initially objected on the grounds that the drainage strategy stated the proposal would result in surface water runoff which exceeds the capacity of the drainage system, no mitigation in the form of sustainable urban drainage had been proposed and therefore flood risk may increase in watercourses downstream of the site, the proposal was deemed contrary to PPS25. Additional information was submitted by the applicants and the objection has now been removed. Conditions are recommended. Severn Trent Water Ltd has no objection and recommends conditions. Natural England object on the grounds that a comprehensive survey examining all building aspects could not be undertaken, surveys should be undertaken prior to determination to show that bats would not be affected or that potential effects would be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated. The site is within a 5km radius of several SSSI’s but would not have a significant effect on these. Satisfied with the use of the standard Phase 1 Habitat Assessment and note that it indicated no presence of badger, great crested new or water vole. Airport Safeguarding made no comments. 3 letters of representations were originally received, objecting on the following grounds: • Increase in theft, vandalism and disorderly behaviour; • Lack of car parking for staff, customers, residents and emergency services; • Lack of a requirement for another supermarket;



15

• Noise and litter; • Loss of light to properties in the area given the height of the proposed building; • Health and safety issues given proximity of railway line; • Minimal access to and from the area which is a fire hazard; • Noise level from railway would affect tenants; • The area is densely populated, housing is not essential since other areas have unoccupied flats, consider that the proposed flats would be left unoccupied as they will be expensive to build and therefore expensive to rent and not easy to sell; • Parking will be a problem as there are no direct transport links and not enough parking provided; • Access seems hazardous for pedestrians and motorists, should traffic increase there may be accidents; • Wildlife in the area would be disrupted; • The environment would be affected as the increase in rubbish bins would mean more rats which will affect the nearby shops, questions how rubbish bins and recycling bins would be stored; • Increase in traffic in and out of the premises which is seen to be tight and has a blind spot to members of the public, many residents have been injured by motorists; • Affect residential amenity through nearness, late evening noise and disturbance; • Increased demand for on street parking; • Contrary to policy 8.6 and 8.7 of the Leicestershire UDP and the Development Control Guidelines adopted by the Local Planning Authority as supplementary planning guidance; • Owners of various other sites would see their trade significantly affected and lead to the closure of other retail outlets and stores such as Netto, Co-op, Aldi etc.; • The proposal will see further diversion of spending; • Height of the proposed building overbearing; • Free flow of traffic affected. In addition, the following concerns have been raised on behalf of owners of the Belvoir Centre, Morrisons and Asda supermarkets: Morrisons: • The proposal is contrary to the 5 retail planning policy tests set out at para. 3.4 of PPS6 as the proposal relates to the development of a site outside the core town shopping area of Coalville; • A retail study in 2005 identified a high level of retention of local convenience spending (83%) and a consequential low residual capacity at 2016 of £7.8 million per annum, insufficient to justify the proposal as the proposed supermarket would have a turnover of almost £11 million per annum and the study concludes that in quantitative and qualitative terms the requirement for additional convenience goods floorspace is limited and that the Council should take a cautious approach to new foodstore proposals; • Since the study was published a further permission has been granted for a new Lidl discount foodstore on Thornborough Road (an out of centre location) which will have further reduced any need for additional foodstore development in the town by approximately £2.5 million; • Reviewed the Retail Assessment prepared by CBRE and submitted in support of the application, have concerns about the assessment of need and note that no account has been taken of the planning permission for the Lidl store; • The proposed turnover from the Hotel Street development is still in excess of the capacity identified in the Council’s independent retail study; • The site is located outside the defined core town shopping area and the Council needs to be satisfied that there are no sequentially preferable locations to accommodate the need for



16

any new retail development; • It is noted that the Hotel site is allocated for retail development under policy R8 of the Local Plan and is adjacent to the boundary of the primary shopping area, this site would therefore appear to be sequentially preferable to the Asda site; • The site is reasonably accessible by a choice of means of transport. Belvoir Centre: • There are redevelopment proposals for the Belvoir Shopping Centre, namely the construction of a new foodstore to cater for the needs of shoppers and provide the potential for linked trips with other retailers in the town and to enhance provision of convenience goods, the construction of a range of A1 units adjacent, the provision of a cinema, the development of A3 units, a new pedestrianised thoroughfare leading from the existing centre to the new units, an upgraded car park, the reconfiguration and upgrading of the existing pedestrianised centre to provide vehicular parking and servicing access outside retailing hours, enhancement of existing open space and two small areas of residential development, vehicular access to car parking would be facilitated by the construction of a new road bridge crossing the freight railway line, the road bridge would be accessed from Hotel Street/London Road; • The site is within the core town centre and therefore a site of first preference in terms of the PPS6 sequential approach; • The site is edge of centre and therefore the application falls to be considered under the 5 tests under PPS6, objections are raised to tests (i) the need for the development, (iii) that there are no more central (sequentially preferable) sites which could accommodate the development and (iv) that there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres; • On the basis of the retail planning statement at 2012 there is some £49.5 million of convenience expenditure available to support foodstores in Coalville, existing stores account for £38.3 million leaving a surplus of £11.3 million, just sufficient to support the proposed foodstore, therefore there is a quantitative need for one further store only in Coalville; • The applicants acknowledge the site is an edge of centre site and dismiss the sequentially preferred car park site as being inappropriate as the site does not appear to be suitable for a foodstore and would be better used for comparison floorspace, viability is uncertain as the redevelopment would be ambitious and would require land assembly and highway alterations which may query the viability of the scheme and the site is only partially available. These are unsubstantiated assertions and the site is large enough to accommodate a foodstore and other retail and town centre uses, the development costs and values of the town centre scheme have been carefully considered and the scheme is viable and are confident that the land required could be incorporated within the proposed scheme; • The critical issue is how the proposal will directly prejudice the likelihood of development on the sequentially preferable car park site, given the need for only one foodstore the car park site proposals would be undermind if this application is approved and the proposed town centre expansion and opportunity for the major enhancement and upgrading of the town centre will be lost, such an outcome would contravene PPS6. Asda (via Savills): • There is no policy preference of the application site over the proposed Asda site; • The ownership certificate lists at least 10 owners on the application site; • The sought floorspace cannot be accommodated on the site; • Too few parking spaces would be provided; • No residents parking provided; • Unlike the Asda application, this application proposes very little improvement to public transport; • Lack of adequate servicing; • The viability of the service yard would be compromised by the access to the first floor car



17

parking; • The puffin crossing and the existing crossing east of Whitwick Road would lead to congestion; • The traffic assessment is overly optimistic; • Residential amenity would be affected by the close proximity of the foodstore; • The residential communal space would be adjacent to the car park; • Entrance to the affordable housing would be via a public house car park; • The development is not appropriate to its setting; • The distances from the proposed Asda site and the Parkridge site measures 150 metres from each to the core area of the town centre, therefore the Ford site is no more preferable than the Asda site. Since it was announced that Tesco were to be the operator of the proposed food store on the site, 13 further representations have been received which are summarised as follows: • On consideration, it seems that only the car park plan offers a wide ranging forward looking plan for the development of Coalville. The Asda and Tesco plans are very limited and in the long term would detract from the viability of the town centre. • Shopping at an out of centre supermarket such as Tesco site will not bring customers to the town centre. • The shopping centre proposal should be the choice. • Concern about modern design and loss of old buildings. • Concern about lack of parking for Tesco. • Concern about how quickly the development could be delivered. Already have a massive Tesco four miles away and people of Coalville should be given a chance. • Tesco plans not viable due to the impact it will have on the volume of traffic in that area of the town centre. • Development would lead to a great increase in the volume of traffic using Whitwick Road, increasing problems to all users of this road. • Development would move the focus of the town centre away from the precinct and kill the business potential in the area of the Belvoir Road end of town. • The application is outline with all matters reserved and there can be no guarantee that the current scheme as presented can be controlled or implemented. • The provision of apartments is probably unattainable and commercially unviable at this moment in time. • Existing problems, particularly at peak times for traffic using Hotel Street, London Road and Whitwick Road with a large catchment of retail, commercial, office and industrial vehicle overload, which cannot easily be resolved without extensive traffic management and disruption in the area. • District Council should approve the scheme as well as those for Asda and the Belvoir Centre • Would expand the heart of the town • District Council does not have best interests of Coalville at heart • Already other Tesco stores locally • Tesco pulled out of Coalville for economic reasons some years ago, and no changes have taken place since then that would justify it opening a new store • Tesco have bought land elsewhere and not developed • Would lead to a “saturation” of small residential units • Regeneration benefits • Less threat to local businesses than Asda • Proximity to Belvoir Centre would encourage linked trips by pedestrians • Impressive design credentials



18

• No regeneration effects on the town other than the site itself • Major traffic problems (including on High Street and Whitwick Road) • Refurbishment of Belvoir Centre unlikely to happen • Proposed food store would not solve Coalville’s shopping problems – non-food stores are required, especially children’s clothing stores The Coalville Town Centre partnership has commented on all three proposed food store applications and its conclusions are summarised as follows: Belvoir Centre • The Belvoir Centre proposals will have the greatest and most positive impact on the town centre given the scale of the suggested development that includes a hotel, shops, cinema, town square, park and anchor food-store • Concerns are raised about the deliverability, site assembly and access over the railway • Attention should be paid to the integration of the development with the rest of the town centre. • Partnership was impressed by the Tesco proposals, particularly in terms of the design and welcome the fact that the scheme is mixed use • Partnership keen to ensure that there are strong pedestrian links with the town centre to ensure linked shopping trips and to receive assurances that the artist’s impressions as presented be honoured in a detailed planning application Asda • The Wolsey Road site is in need of regeneration as the area is currently a poor gateway to the town centre • Concerns regarding the proposed new highways layout which now appears to be highly detrimental to the look and feel of Memorial Square Summary • Partnership is supportive of the Belvoir Centre proposals as the ones likely to bring the most benefit to Coalville businesses and users providing the concerns can be satisfactorily addressed • Partnership is also very supportive of the Tesco plans, which it hopes could act as a catalyst for further development within the town centre should the Belvoir Centre scheme not be approved • Despite strong partnership support for the Asda brand and retail offer it is felt that the single use nature of the site and poor pedestrian linkages are unlikely to bring benefits to the wider town centre • Whatever the decision taken by the Planning Committee, the Partnership will work closely with the successful applicant(s) to continue to improve the town centre for the benefit of businesses, residents and visitors alike. The full contents of all representations received are available for Members to inspect on the case file. 5. Relevant Planning Policy Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 6 – Planning for Town Centres The application site is located outside the core town centre shopping area and is classed as an



19

outer town centre shopping area. Under the definitions within Annex A to PPS6 the site would appear to be "edge-of-centre". Paragraph 3.1 of PPS6 provides that to deliver the Government's objective of promoting vital and viable town centres, development should be focussed in existing centres in order to strengthen and, where appropriate, regenerate them. In terms of assessing proposed developments, the following paragraphs within Chapter 3 provide as follows: 3.4 In the context of development control and subject to the policies set out below, local planning authorities should require applicants to demonstrate: a) the need for development; b) that the development is of an appropriate scale; c) that there are no more central sites for the development; d) that there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres; and e) that locations are accessible. In terms of the factors listed above, the following passages are considered of note: a) Need 3.9 Need must be demonstrated for any application for a main town centre use which would be in an edge-of-centre or out-of-centre location and which is not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan document strategy. Need must be assessed quantitatively and qualitatively. b) Scale 3.12 An indicative upper limit for the scale of a development (usually defined in terms of gross floorspace) which is likely to be acceptable in particular centres for different facilities may be set out in development plan documents. Where this is not the case, or where a development plan document is out-of-date, the factors to be considered in determining the appropriate scale of development in a centre are those set out in paragraphs 2.41-2.43 (i.e. the scale of development should relate to the role and function of the centre within the wider hierarchy and the catchment served and, where a need has been identified, local planning authorities should seek to identify sites in the centre, or failing that on the edge of the centre, capable of accommodating larger format developments). c) Site Selection 3.13 The sequential approach to site selection should be applied to all development proposals for sites that are not in an existing centre nor allocated in an up-to-date development plan document. The relevant centres in which to search for sites will depend on the overall strategy set out in the development plan, the nature and scale of the development and the catchment that the development seeks to serve. 3.14 In selecting sites, all options in the centre should be thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered. 3.15 In applying the sequential approach, and considering alternative sites, developers and operators should be able to demonstrate that in seeking to find a site in or on the edge of existing centres they have been flexible about their proposed business model in terms of the following planning considerations: - the scale of their development; - the format of their development; - car parking provision; and



20

- the scope for disaggregation. 3.19 Where it is argued that otherwise sequentially-preferable sites are not appropriate for the particular development proposed, applicants should provide clear evidence to demonstrate why such sites are not practicable alternatives in terms of: - Availability: the sites are unavailable now and are unlikely to become available for development within a reasonable period of time (determined on the merits of a particular case). Where such sites become available unexpectedly after receipt of the application the local planning authority should take this into account in their assessment of the application; and - Suitability: with due regard to the requirements to demonstrate flexibility the sites are not suitable for the type of development proposed; and - Viability: the development would not be viable on these sites. d) Assessing Impact 3.20 Impact assessments should be undertaken for any application for a main town centre use which would be in an edge-of-centre or out-of-centre location and which is not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan strategy. 3.21 In assessing sites, local planning authorities should consider the impact of the proposal on the vitality and viability of existing centres within the catchment area of the proposed development, including the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments. The identification of need does not necessarily indicate that there will be no negative impact. "3.22 In particular, local planning authorities should consider the impact of the development on the centre or centres likely to be affected, taking account of: - the extent to which the development would put at risk the spatial planning strategy for the area and the strategy for a particular centre or network of centres, or alter its role in the hierarchy of centres; - the likely effect on future public or private sector investment needed to safeguard the vitality and viability of the centre or centres; - the likely impact of the proposed development on trade/turnover and on the vitality and viability of existing centres within the catchment area of the proposed development and, where applicable, on the rural economy (an example of a positive impact might be if development results in claw back expenditure from the surrounding area); - changes to the range of services provided by centres that could be affected; - likely impact on the number of vacant properties in the primary shopping area; - potential changes to the quality, attractiveness, physical condition and character of the centre or centres and to its role in the economic and social life of the community; and - the implications of proposed leisure and entertainment uses for the evening and night time economy of the centre…." e) Ensuring Locations are Accessible 3.24 In considering proposed new developments, local planning authorities should consider: i) The need for accessibility by a choice of means of transport 3.25 Developments should be accessible by a choice of means of transport, including public transport, walking, cycling, and the car (taking full account of customers' likely travel patterns). In determining whether developments are or will become genuinely accessible, local authorities should assess the distance of proposed developments from existing or proposed public transport facilities (bus or railway stations and interchanges). Account should also be taken of



21

the frequency and capacity of services, and whether access is easy, safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people. Distances should be measured as actual walking distance rather than as a straight line. 3.26 Local planning authorities should assess the extent to which retail, leisure and office developers have tailored their approach to meet the Government's objectives as set out in PPG13 (Transport). For example through the preparation of accessibility analyses, transport assessments, travel plans and the promotion of opportunities to reduce car journeys through home delivery services, and contributions to improve access, traffic management and parking. ii) The impact on car use, traffic and congestion 3.27 In assessing new developments, local planning authorities should consider: - whether the proposal would have an impact on the overall distance travelled by car; and - the effect on local traffic levels and congestion, after public transport and traffic management measures have been secured. Draft PPS 4 Draft PPS 4 would replace existing PPS 6. The general thrust of Draft PPS4 is that it reinforces the town centre first approach through the retention of the sequential test. The existing need/ impact test are replaced by a more extensive list to assess the positive and negative impact of proposals including cumulative effects (EC20) The starting point for consideration of Planning applications for development for town centre uses not in a centre nor allocated in an up to date development plan is Policy EC21 which states that- Having considered the evidence, local authorities should determine planning applications for town centre uses that are not in a centre or allocated in an up to date development plan in the following way: 1. Refuse planning permission where the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of Policy EC19 (the sequential approach) 2. Refuse planning permission where there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts in terms of mitigation of or adaption to climate change or any one or more other key impacts under Policy EC20.1 (3) (the impact assessment) 3. Consider proposals favourably where any adverse impacts under Policy EC20.1(3) are not significant and these are likely to be outweighed by significant wider economic, social and environmental benefits arising form the proposal under Policy EC20.1(4) or other material considerations Policy EC18 requires that for planning applications for main town centre uses which are not in an existing centre not allocated in an up to date development plan the following evidence is required- 1. A sequential assessment 2. An impact assessment * These replace the five PPS6 tests, with the need test the most significant deletion in terms of the current proposal. Policy EC19 points out that in considering sequential assessments Local planning authorities



22

should ensure that- 1. In centre options have been thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered 2. Where it has been demonstrated that there are no town centre sites to accommodate a proposed development preference is given to edge of centre locations which are well connected to the centre by means of easy pedestrian access. 3. In considering sites in or on the edge of existing centres developers and operators have demonstrated flexibility about the proposed business model in terms of; a) scale b) format c) car parking provision d) the scope for disaggregation 4. In considering whether flexibility has been demonstrated under (3) take into account genuine difficulties which are likely to occur in operating the proposed business model from the sequentially preferable site. However evidence which claims that a class of goods cannot be sold form town centres should not be accepted. 5. In considering sites in or on the edge of existing centres developers have explored whether specific parts of a development could be operated from separate, sequentially preferable sites (e.g. in retail / leisure parks) 6. Applicants have provided clear evidence to demonstrate why otherwise sequentially preferable sites are not appropriate for the particular development proposed, taking account of a site’s availability, suitability and viability. In applying this policy, local planning authorities should be realistic in considering whether sites are suitable, viable and available. Policy EC20 deals with impact and local authorities should- 1. Consider whether the assessment sets out clear conclusions on all town centre and wider impacts. Assessments should focus in particular on the first five years after the implementation of the proposal. 2. Consider any positive and negative impacts of the proposal, taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed schemes. 3. Assess the proposal against the following key impacts: a) Limit CO2 emissions over the lifetime of the development b) If in an edge of centre location, the impact on the spatial planning strategy, particularly the role of the centre in the hierarchy of centres. c) What the impact is on investment in the centres or catchment area d) Whether it is an appropriate scale e) The accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport and the extent to which it will reduce or increase the overall distance travelled by car and resultant effect on CO2 emissions, the effect on local traffic levels and congestion and its contribution to linked trips. f) For retail and leisure schemes, impact on in centre trade/ turnover and trade in the wider area taking account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years from the time the application is made. g) What the impact is on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of retail offer. h) Whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design. Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 13 – Transport PPG 13 contains similar advice to that set out in PPS6 regarding the need to promote existing centres as the preferred location for new development. Preference should be given to town



23

centre sites, followed by edge of centre locations. PPG13 also sets out the Government's policies for managing demand for travel, and suggests that a Travel Plan is appropriate for retail development in excess of 1,000 square metres gross floorspace. East Midlands Regional Plan RSS 8 (2009) Policy 2 seeks to improve continuously the layout, design and construction of new development. Policy 3 sets out a sequential approach for the distribution of development and economic activity. The policy also advises that priority should be given to making best use of previously developed land and vacant/underused buildings in urban or other sustainable areas. Policy 22 sets out the Regional Priorities for Town Centres and Retail Development. In particular it requires that, where town centres are under-performing, action should be taken to promote investment through design led initiatives and the development and implementation of town centre strategies. Policy 48 states that Local Planning Authorities should apply the maximum amounts of vehicle parking for new development as set out in PPG13. Parking in excess of these standards should only be provided in exceptional circumstances. Policy 49 seeks to promote improvements in public transport accessibility. Policy Three Cities SRS 5 seeks to promote the development of the National Forest in ways that generate environmental, economic and social benefits of both local and national significance. North West Leicestershire Local Plan The site is within Limits to Development as defined in the Local Plan. The site is also within an area subject to Policy R8 (c) which states redevelopment for shopping and related purposes, including food and drink, will be permitted on the following sites within Coalville subject to environmental and traffic considerations: (c) north side of Hotel Street, Coalville. Redevelopment of these sites must be comprehensive in design and well-related to the form and functioning of adjoining parts of the shopping area. Piecemeal redevelopment which would be prejudicial to the objectives of this policy will not be permitted. Policy R1 provides that shopping and related development (such as financial and professional services and food and drink uses) will be permitted within Coalville and Ashby de la Zouch Town Centres, on allocated sites, and in existing or proposed local shopping areas. New retail development outside these areas will only be permitted where it can be shown that a number of criteria would be satisfied. Policy S2 states that development within the Limits to Development will be permitted where it complies with the policies in the Local Plan. Policy E3 seeks to prevent development which would be significantly detrimental to the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of nearby dwellings. Policy E4 seeks to achieve good design in new development. Policy E7 states that all development should make appropriate provision for hard and soft landscaping. Policy E8 states development will only be permitted where appropriate crime prevention



24

measures are incorporated as an integral part of the design, layout and landscaping features. Policy E9 requires access by all persons with restricted mobility where sites are open to the public. Policy F1 states new development within the boundaries of the National Forest should reflect the importance of its Forest context by making appropriate provision for landscaping and tree planting. Policy F3 requires landscaping and planting schemes for new development. Policy T3 states that development will be permitted only where its highway design and layout make adequate provision for vehicular access, servicing arrangements and circulation. Policy T8 sets out the criteria for the provision of parking associated with development. Policy T13 requires adequate provision for cycle parking. Policy H4/1 states proposals for development of land for housing will be determined on the basis of a sequential approach to the release of such land. Policy H6 requires a minimum density in Coalville of 40 dwellings per hectare. Policy H7 seeks good design in all new housing developments. Policy H8 requires the provision of affordable housing as part of any redevelopment proposals. Policy R11 states that in the outer part of the Coalville Town Centre Shopping Area non residential institutions (Class D1) and assembly and leisure uses (Class D2) will be permitted. Policy R16 states that within the Coalville Shopping Area the use of upper floors for the following purposes will be permitted, subject to parking and amenity considerations: A1-A5 (shops, financial and professional services, food and drink) , B1a (offices), residential use, D1 (non residential institutions) and D2 (assembly and leisure uses). Policy L21 requires the provision of children’s play areas on new housing developments in excess of 10 dwellings unless play space needs arising from the development can be adequately met by existing facilities within walking distance. Other Policy Documents The Coalville Town Centre Vision was produced by BDP/Donaldsons on behalf of the District Council in January 2007, and sets out options for the way in which the town centre could be improved over future years. The Vision identified various redevelopment opportunities including the site the subject of this application. In respect of the application site, the Vision envisaged that the site could be suitable for mixed use including retail. The document states that Coalville is a key centre and is earmarked for continued growth, it fails to meet local needs, in particular in terms of quality food and other retailing, the area has poor public realm and there is capacity to increase the amount of comparison floorspace and to improve the quality of the convenience provision. In terms of the weight to be attached to the Town Centre Vision document it is not part of the



25

Development Plan and has not been adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document. It is therefore considered that the document is a material planning consideration but one that can only carry limited weight. 6. Assessment Principle of Development / Planning Policy Issues The key issues regarding the principle of development are considered to be the acceptability of the site in retail policy terms and the site’s designation under Local Plan Policy R8 (c). Policy R8 was saved until September 2007 under the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 although the Secretary of State has subsequently confirmed that the saved policies will remain in force until the LDF is progressed. Retail Policy Issues The application has been supported by a Planning and Retail Statement setting out, the case for the proposed development in terms of retail issues. As such, the District Council has sought consultants' advice on the need for a development of this type and the merits of the application, having regard to the relevant retail policy. Members are advised that the retail advice on both this application and the Tesco application (also reported on this Agenda) has been provided by the Manchester office of Roger Tym and Partners. In addition, the Leicester office of Roger Tym and Partners is acting as agent in respect of the recently submitted application for the Belvoir Centre / car park site. The advice to the Council on the two retail applications is from the Manchester Office of Roger Tym and Partners. The Leicester office of Roger Tym and Partners subsequently accepted instructions from the owners of the Belvoir Centre. Concerns have been raised by the applicants that the Council has relied on advice from Roger Tym and Partners who, by acting for different parties, has a conflict of interest and, by relying on such advice, the decision of the Council could arguably be seen to be seen to be biased and unfair. The Manchester office of Roger Tym and Partners has confirmed that the usual professional conflict checks are carried out before accepting instructions, and the usual "chinese walls" are in place; their advice to the Council is based on their own independent professional judgement, and on the evidence available. They are satisfied that, professionally, no conflict of interest arises with the Instructions of the Leicester office, and they advise that the Manchester Office has no financial incentive to achieve a particular outcome. The Council's legal advisors confirm that they are satisfied that based, on the above, it would not be inappropriate to rely on the advice of Roger Tym and Partners. Notwithstanding this view, however, the Council has commissioned further advice from different planning consultants, Barton Willmore, who confirm that the advice given by Roger Tym and Partners is, in their view, sound. Unless otherwise stated, therefore, subsequent references to the Council’s retail consultants refer to the Manchester office of Roger Tym and Partners. This part of the report considers the merits of the application in retail policy terms, taking into account supporting information submitted on behalf of the application, and the assessment of the proposals by the authority's consultants. The applicants originally contended that the site was “edge of centre” for the purposes of consideration in the context of PPS6; this assertion is agreed with by the Local Planning Authority’s consultants. The individual elements of the application’s performance against the relevant policy are set out below: Need Before considering the merits of the proposals, an assessment of the need (or otherwise) for such a development is required, given the edge of centre location of the site.



26

The proposed retail element relates to a foodstore or some 3,252 square metres plus two additional retail units of some 383 square metres and 661 square metres. The applicant states this would provide 4,296 square metres of net retail sales floorspace in total. No indication is however provided to indicate the proportion of floorspace that would be utilised for the sale of convenience goods items and the proportion that would be required for the sale of comparison goods. Need for Additional Convenience Retail Floorspace The applicant’s retail consultant (CBRE) provides no indication of the likely turnover of the convenience element of the proposed scheme, instead the need assessment is to an extent conducted backwards. The consultants provide a breakdown of total convenience expenditure available within the Coalville catchment area then deducts the turnover of existing stores to arrive at a residual of £10.98 million. It then suggests this will be sufficient to support the convenience element of the proposed foodstore at Hotel Street. The Council’s retail consultant considers it likely that the turnover of the convenience component of the scheme has been under estimated by the applicant’s consultants. They state if it is assumed that 70% of the total net floorspace of the proposed foodstore will be used for the sale of convenience goods (2,276 square metres) and if a convenience sales density of £10,000 per square metre at 2011 the likely convenience turnover of the store would be approximately £22.8 million. It is asserted that CBRE fails to appreciate the likely turnover of the convenience floorspace proposed and as a consequence does not make a thorough assessment of the requisite qualitative need. Notwithstanding the methodology issue above, the Council’s retail consultant considers that on balance CBRE has also under-estimated the expenditure capacity available to support the new floorspace within Coalville. In particular it is noted that the catchment area identified by CBRE is relatively small and does not account for 30% expenditure which comes from outlying areas. However, if 30% of the foodstore’s convenience turnover was to be drawn from elsewhere, the expenditure capacity required from within the catchment area would be 30% less than the £22.8 million likely total turnover (i.e. around £16 million). In addition it is noted that CBRE has not assessed whether existing foodstores within the catchment area are over trading which could potentially form an additional element of capacity. The Council’s retail consultant concludes that whilst quantitative need may be insufficient to support a new food superstore, there are strong qualitative arguments to support the provision of one new major foodstore in the town. At present supermarket provision is limited to the existing Co-op, Netto and out of town Morrisons store on Whitwick Road, which it is believed is over trading. It is therefore accepted that there is some need, in particular, qualitative need, for a further foodstore in Coalville. Need for Additional Comparison Retail Floorspace The scheme comprises an element of additional comparison retail floorspace. It is assumed that around 30% of the floorspace of the foodstore would be used for the sale of non food items (i.e. around 976 square metres net) and that the two additional units would be occupied by comparison retail operators. In total therefore the scheme would provide around 2,000 square metres net of comparison retail floorspace. CBRE do not undertake a formal assessment of the quantitative need for addition comparison floorspace in Coalville. However, the Council’s retail consultant forecasts comparison expenditure capacity to support between around 2,543 square metres and 4,253 square metres



27

net additional non food floorspace in the period up to 2011. The Council’s retail consultant therefore agrees with CBRE’s conclusion that there is sufficient comparison expenditure capacity to support Parkridge Development’s proposal. The scale of the Development CBRE does not address the issue of the scale of development in the Retail Planning Statement. However, it is noted that the proposed retail scheme is not of inappropriate scale for a centre of Coalville’s status in the retail hierarchy as the centre is classed as a ’sub-regional centre’ in RSS8. On this basis it is considered that the application scheme meets the requirements of this part of the PPS6 test. Sequential Approach PPS6 makes clear in paragraph 3.14 that the sequential approach to site selection should be applied to all development proposals for sites that are not in an existing centre and that “all options in the centre should be thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered”. Given that the application site is on an edge of centre location, the key issue to consider is whether there are any suitable, available and viable sites in the town centre (or sites which are otherwise sequentially preferable) which could, within a reasonable period of time, accommodate the development proposed. CBRE identify two potentially sequentially preferable sites to the application site, namely the town centre car park and the Wolsey Road site. It is accepted that the Wolsey Road site is located further from the Core Town Centre Shopping Area than the application site and as such offers no material benefits in terms of its accessibility or potential for forming links with the town centre. However, the town centre car park site is more centrally located than the application site. CBRE state that although the car park is suitable for retail use it does not appear to be suitable for a foodstore, the viability of the site for retail development is uncertain because of the redevelopment and reconfiguration costs and the site is only partially available and is likely to require extensive land assembly. The Council’s retail consultant has reservations in relation to CBRE’s sequential site assessment. The town centre car park site is located within the defined Core Town Centre Shopping Area and is identified as the first priority for development in the draft Coalville Town Centre Vision. The site is therefore, in principle, sequentially preferable to the application site in policy terms. Paragraph 3.16 of PPS6 states that, the purpose of the sequential approach to site selection ‘is to explore the possibility of enabling the development to fit onto more central sites by reducing the footprint of the proposal’. CBRE’s dismissal of the car park site does not demonstrate any flexibility (i.e. considering a reduced floorspace). CBRE also state that the site is a complex and long term delivery option. However, in the draft Coalville Town Centre document it is stated that ‘delivery of the proposed development on the car park...seems fairly straightforward in site assembly terms’. The Council’s retail consultant therefore concludes that there is support for only one foodstore in terms of need and on this basis, the potential for the redevelopment of the car park site needs to be fully examined as it is the first preference in sequential terms. Development on the application site could prejudice the prospects of major redevelopment on the town centre site. They conclude that the application scheme does not meet the requirements of the sequential approach. Since deferral of the application, a further report on the sequential approach has been received from a consultant acting on behalf of the applicants Parkridge. This concludes as follows:



28

"This note has demonstrated that the Local Plan is the starting point for decision making here unless material considerations suggest otherwise (Section 54A). Although PPS6 is more recent than the Local Plan, this does not mean that it supersedes it. Although drafted in the context of national and regional guidance which has since been superseded, the retail policies in the Local Plan reflect PPS6. When relevant Local Plan policies were saved beyond 2007 for a further ten years until 2010 the Council’s “detailed assessment” made clear that policies R1, R8 and R9 were in conformity with the RSS and reflected advice in PPS6. Policies R8 and R9 were considered to be “… part of an overall retail strategy. Deletion of the policies would undermine this strategy”. All three policies were therefore considered “necessary”. This conclusion was accepted by the Government Office on behalf of the SoS. The saved policies of the Local Plan can therefore be given full weight. The site’s allocation for retailing within the centre therefore remains relevant and important. As a result the application does not need to meet tests regarding need, sequential approach and impact. The officer has agreed that the site is acceptable in terms of scale and accessibility. Notwithstanding this, we have considered the PPS6 tests. The officer accepts that there is a need here. The site falls within the centre and is not edge of centre. It is therefore sequentially preferable. There are no other sequentially preferable sites. The officer explains that the Asda site is not well related to the town centre. There are serious concerns about the availability (and viability) of the Belvoir Centre proposals and question marks over its suitability for a foodstore. The Parkridge proposal will have a beneficial impact on the centre as a whole by attracting more shoppers to it and in doing so will help a more suitable and potentially deliverable proposal for the Belvoir Centre. All other criteria for the allocation of this site in terms of comprehensive development and being well related to the form and function of the centre have been met. Planning permission should therefore be granted." The applicants consultant is clearly stating the case that the Local Plan policy R8 remains the starting point for the determination of this application with its saved status and compliance with PPS6, and that The Core and Outer Town Centre Shopping areas on the proposals map together form the ‘Primary Shopping Area’ with no sequential preference for one against the other. This argument is not accepted by officers who are of the option that this policy was not 'up to date' as it was originally drafted over 10 years ago and adopted 7 years ago. Notwithstanding the point that the general thrust of the previous PPG6 (which was in effect at the time the local plan policies were drafted and adopted) and current PPS6 are similar, these timescales since drafting and adoption of the relevant local plan policies are too long for the policies to be seen as 'up to date' in PPS6 terms. For this reason the Need, Sequential and Impact tests still need to be met. In addition, as stated above, this application has been subject to an appraisal by the Council’s retail consultants, Roger Tym and Partners who do not dispute the view that the Parkridge site in PPS6 terms was edge of centre. Whereas there is a case for weight to be attached to Policy R8, the critical question remains whether this policy is up to date. The remaining points relating to the applicants consultants argument that the location of the Ford garage site is within the Primary shopping area is much weaker and not backed up by the clear distinction between Core and Outer town centre on the proposals map and the situation on the ground with the respective land uses. In addition with a centre of the scale of Coalvile and the location of the railway line segregating the Core Town Centre from the Parkridge site, the



29

Primary Shopping Area (PPS6) and Core Town Centre Shopping Area (Local Plan) are considered to be one and the same. Therefore, by virtue of its identification in the North West Leicestershire Local Plan as being within the Core Town Centre Shopping Area, the town centre car park site is the most sequentially preferable of the various sites referred to. The application site is classed as ‘edge of town centre’. At the time the application was originally reported to the Planning Committee (7 April 2009), it was reported that the owners of the Belvoir Centre had undertaken a public consultation in respect of proposals to extend the centre eastwards into the car park. It was also reported verbally to the Committee meeting that, on that day (i.e. 7 April 2009), an application submission had been made to the Local Planning Authority. Whilst that submission was considered to be invalid by the District Council having regard to the National and Local Requirements for submission of applications, further information was subsequently submitted, and the application was validated on 10 June 2009 (ref. 09/00359/FULM). That application will need to be brought to the Planning Committee at a future date for a decision. The Belvoir Centre scheme includes the following: • Demolition of the existing Co-Op / Iceland store plus other existing units to the eastern end of the Belvoir Centre • Formation of a new pedestrian walkway eastwards from the existing centre • Formation of a new square / open space with a pedestrian link through to Belvoir Road • 22 new retail units ranging between 94 and 8,098 square metres in floorspace (the largest unit being a food store) • Hotel • Cinema • A new vehicular access via Phoenix Green with a new road bridge crossing the existing railway • A three storey car park to the eastern end of the car park site Whilst the Belvoir Centre applicants draw attention to the potential for the site to provide for smaller units, and whilst the Local Planning Authority is still consulting on the Belvoir Centre scheme, on the basis of the type of scheme indicated in the Belvoir Centre application, it would seem at this stage that a food store of a scale commensurate to that for which a need has been identified could in principle be provided on the site. Whilst the Town Centre Vision advises in paragraph 7.12 that “the Town Centre Car park site is not an option for this kind of development” (i.e. food retail), the submitted application would seem to indicate that the site may in fact be capable of providing such a facility (and, furthermore, the status of the Town Centre Vision document should, it is considered, limit the weight attached to it to a significant degree). The issue therefore is whether that site is deliverable within a reasonable time period (see Paragraph 3.19 of PPS 6). In this case it is considered reasonable to apply the five year period that PPS 6 suggests using in respect of identifying quantitative need. At the time the draft masterplan for the Belvoir Centre was prepared, the developers in respect of that site advised that, were planning permission granted, the following timetable for implementation of their scheme would be likely: Submission of planning application: March / April 2009 Planning permission approval: July 2009



30

Construction commencement: August 2009 Completion: July / August 2011 Were this scheme, as anticipated in the draft masterplan document, to be fully implementable by summer 2011, it would clearly be well within the five year period. However, it will be noted that the timescales anticipated have already “slipped”, which would suggest that the completion date of summer 2011 may no longer be achieved. The developers in respect of the Belvoir Centre scheme have been asked for a revised timetable but as this stage no further information in relation to this matter has been forthcoming. If any further comments are received in terms of this issue, they will be reported on the Update Sheet. The applicants (Parkridge) consultants have submitted a review of the Belvoir Centre extension application including detailed consideration of the deliverability of the proposal within a reasonable time period. The report concludes as follows: "Delivery is vital for any scheme that purports to address an urgent need to regenerate a town centre. There appears to be no cogent explanation or evidence of how delivery here, within a reasonable period, i.e. certainly no more than five years, can be secured. The applicant’s assertion that the whole scheme can be completed during 2011 (Statement of Community Involvement, paragraph 4.2 and Appendix 3) is without foundation and appears, in all the circumstances, to be a wholly unrealistic suggestion. Our analysis and the questions posed, strongly suggest that the scheme cannot be delivered in a reasonable period. For the purposes of this note we have assumed a period of up to five years. However, we have expressed our view elsewhere that given the urgent need for regeneration in Coalville and the priority the Council has placed on achieving regeneration, a shorter period, 3 or so years, would be more applicable and would constitute a reasonable time period in the circumstances. There is an alternative, deliverable scheme that will serve to kick start a key component of the necessary regeneration process here. It will serve to enhance footfall elsewhere in the centre and by attracting more affluent shoppers back to the centre will inspire confidence in other retailers to take up available premises, leading to greater demand for premises and create a platform for investors and developers to bring forward, in the medium term, more appropriate plans to enhance other parts of the town centre including the Belvoir Centre." In addition, the applicants (Parkridge) Traffic Consultants have also submitted a report to cast further doubt about the deliverability of the Belvoir Centre scheme due to capacity issues at the proposed new access to that site. This report concludes: "This note has predicted the level of traffic that could reasonable be generated by the Belvoir redevelopment. These predictions are on the whole based around those used in the production of the Tesco, Hotel Street transport assessment, which has subsequently been agreed. The note then shows that the proposed access junction would operate ‘over capacity’ in 2019, with vehicles being subject to excessive level of delay, and experiencing long queues. The very large degree to which the junction is over capacity is unsurprising given that this is what the Belvoir Centre’s TA showed for the opening year based on significantly more optimistic traffic assumptions.



31

To accommodate the likely flows would require a junction with greater capacity, and realistically this would require additional land, for example so that the site access arm aligned more closely with Whitwick Road to allow the junction to allow those two arms to run at the same time. It is not, however reasonable for the Tesco/Parkridge team to assume alternatives to the proposed access junction that require additional land outside of the application site with no knowledge of the availability/deliverability of such land. The routing of traffic on the highway network assumes that any persons using the Bridge Street access (to the far south of the site) would continue to do so, but any new persons visiting the site from the south, would route via London Road. In reality, this a highly unlikely scenario, as would be difficult in the extreme to control the level of flow to a public car park via a public highway (Bridge Road) – it seems sensible that all or none of the traffic is either allowed or not allowed to use Bridge Street. If Bridge Road is closed to all through-traffic, then this would add a significant level of traffic onto the proposed site access which would serve to push the junction even further over capacity. The alternative is to permit free access, however use of Bridge Road in this way would throw up the possibility of not only development traffic using that road, but it also being used as an alternative route between London Road and Coalville south, for example as an alternative to using Belvoir Road and the Memorial Square junction. Hence even were development traffic to reduce, the current layout almost certainly means that any reduction in development flows at the London Road access junction would be replaced by through traffic. Options to prevent this and limit development flows would centre on the development layout, something which Parkridge/Tesco cannot possibly assume. It is also difficult to see how it is possible to limit the amount of development traffic that uses one particular access. This is only something that can be done by the Belvoir Centre applicant, and it is worthy of note that no such pre-applications or discussions off these matters has occurred. This suggests that any agreement on an acceptable solution is some considerable time away, if indeed it is at all possible." The relevant PPS6 test in terms of the assessing the availability of sequentially preferable sites is that, in dismissing such sites it needs to be shown that they are unavailable now and are unlikely to become available within a reasonable period of time (determined on the merits of a particular case). Officers remain of the view that the appropriate timescale to assess the deliverability of the town centre site is five years and not three as suggested by the applicant's consultants, although it is noted that, in its report on its Enquiry by Design (set out in more detail under design issues below), the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment stresses that urgent and long overdue action is needed to improve substantially Coalville’s retail offer. There is clear logic in having a correlation between the 5 year time period for which the 'need' for new retail development has to be met and the sequential appraisal of potential sites over the same period of time to meet this need. In addition the current adverse economic conditions are such that three years is considered an overly short period within which to demonstrate the availability, and viability of the sequentially preferable site. For this reason it would be possible that the town centre site, which due to its town centre location is considered to be best placed to secure the regeneration of Coalville, is dismissed if an unreasonably short time period is applied in assessing whether it is deliverable. Notwithstanding the views of the applicants for the Belvoir Centre scheme in terms of timescales and the above stated concerns of the applicants (Parkridge) on deliverability of the Belvoir Centre scheme, the advice of the District Council’s Property Services department has



32

been sought to help establish whether those timescales are realistic. In particular, there appear to be a number of issues that could impact on the likelihood of such a scheme being delivered by summer 2011 or, indeed, within five years, including the need to reach agreements with various parties with interests in the land (including the District Council, Leicestershire County Council, the Co-Op and Sustrans) and the potential difficulties posed by the need to provide a new road bridge across the railway which would presumably necessitate the agreement of Network Rail. To this end, Property Services considers that there are a number of “unknowns” affecting such a scheme, which make it difficult to say with certainty that the scheme could be completed within five years. Property Services advises that land ownership issues have not been resolved (and at this stage there is little evidence of active steps to acquire the land, including approaching other landowners), the commitment of the funding partners is not evidenced and little detailed development work has been undertaken. At this point in time, Property Services considers that the scheme is “speculative” on the basis of the information available so far, and that considerably more evidence would be required before they could state with any certainty that delivery would be expected within five years. In view of this, it is accepted that it is difficult to say with certainty that the car park site would come forward within five years although, having regard to the work currently being undertaken, the Council’s consultants consider that the potential redevelopment of the site within the near future is a clear possibility. Whilst limited progress appears to have been made thus far, it not is considered that this should necessarily rule out the possibility that the site would come forward, and to reach such a conclusion, particularly given the timescales set out by that site’s promoters, would be premature. At the time of preparing this report, limited responses had been received in respect of the Belvoir Centre application given its relatively early stage in the determination process. As such, it is difficult to say with any certainty whether the scheme proposed is feasible and, moreover, deliverable within a reasonable period of time. However, the key issue here is not whether or not there is an alternative scheme which is available, suitable or viable, but whether there is such a site. In this regard, it was reported to the April 2009 Planning Committee meeting on the late papers Update Sheet that further comments had been received from the District Council’s Head of Property, advising that he had met with representatives of the developers in order to develop a better understanding of the Belvoir Centre scheme and the funding that lies behind it. He advised at that time that a scheme could be delivered on that site with a land assembly package comprising parcels that are currently in the ownership of La Salle, the District Council and Leicestershire County Council. He also advised that the developers had provided information and background detail that opens up the potential for a sale of District Council land to La Salle as a Special Purchaser. Whilst he commented that this was not to say that it would happen, the advice given was that it was a clear possibility. This would not be the scheme as proposed in the submitted planning application, but the land assembly would allow the supermarket, new retail units and associated car parking to proceed. He did, however, reiterate his views on the larger scheme for the site which, in his opinion, was less certain as he could foresee land assembly issues causing delay. He therefore advised at that time that he could be less certain about delivery within five years on the “full” scheme but, it could nevertheless be achieved. In addition, the Council has now engaged Planning Consultants Barton Willmore to provide additional advice on the likely deliverability of a scheme on the Belvoir Centre/car park site (including that for which planning permission has now been applied). Their advice can be summarised as follows: Availability:



33

• Whilst the Belvoir Centre / car park site is in multiple ownership, this in itself does not limit the availability of a site, particularly given that multiple site ownership is a common feature of many town centre redevelopment sites. • Notwithstanding concerns that Network Rail holds a ransom strip of land which could restrict a new access road being built over the rail line, it is understood that a development agreement could be put in place within a nine to twelve month period and, whilst Network Rail would seek to maximise the value of their site, they are not aware of any intention to withhold this site. • If land assembly proved to be an issue in respect of the Belvoir Centre / car park, the Council would have powers of CPO. Alternatively, part of the site, potentially not requiring access via a new road bridge, could be pursued. • There is no evidence to suggest that the car park site (or part thereof) is not available for the proposal the subject of this application in whole or disaggregated form. • As such, based on the information to hand, the car park site is likely to be available, or is capable of being made available, within a reasonable period of time. Suitability: • The Belvoir Centre / car park site is located within the Core Town Centre Shopping Area, and immediately adjoins the existing shopping centre - redevelopment of the car park for retailing is therefore considered to be suitable in principle. Viability: • Insufficient information has been submitted in support of the proposal, the subject of this application, to demonstrate that the development of the Belvoir Centre / car park site as a foodstore would not be viable. • The current Belvoir Centre proposals would appear to be viable. Even if they were not, however, it is not the case that an alternative scheme (e.g. comprising solely a foodstore on part of the site) would not be viable. The planning consultant, acting on behalf of the applicants Parkridge, has commented on the Bartion Willmore advice summarised above. They conclude that "The Belvoir Centre site must be considered first as it is within the town centre. It is clear that there is no evidence to provide the necessary confidence that this site is available. Nor is there any evidence that the proposed development is viable. There is no reasonable for Barton Willmore to rely on the assertions that they make about availability and viability. If the local planning authority are to make appropriate decsions what is needed is facts and evidence not myths and assertions. Notwithstanding the potential suitability of this site for some form of development, it therefore clearly fails the sequential test" I have taken into account the comments of the planning consultant representing the applicants Parkridge. However, overall in respect of the town centre car park site, it is at this stage concluded, taking into account the advice of the Council’s two planning consultants and Head of Property, that the site would seem capable of accommodating a scheme of some description (whether or not the scheme proposed under application ref. 09/00359/FULM), and would be sequentially preferable to the Parkridge/Tesco proposals. Whilst there are some doubts as to the deliverability of such a scheme at the Belvoir Centre within a reasonable period of time, it is not possible to conclude with any certainty that the site could not provide a viable alternative to the current Parkridge/Tesco proposals within five years. As such, on balance, it is considered that the car park site represents a sequentially preferable site which the applicants have failed to demonstrate is not available, suitable or viable.



34

However, the Hotel Street site is the second site in terms of the sequential approach and until such time as a more robust case to demonstrate that the car park site could not be delivered within a reasonable timeframe is made, it would be premature to approve a large foodstore on the Ford Garage application site, especially as such a retail outlet would prejudice the redevelopment of the town centre site. Impact on Existing Centres CBRE, the retail consultants for the applicant, set out its assessment of the trade impact of the application scheme. It estimates that the scheme would have a relatively high impact, of over 15%, on each of Coalville’s existing supermarkets (Morrisons, Aldi and Netto). However, it is accepted that these larger format stores are situated in either edge or out of centre locations and as such are afforded no policy protection by PPS6. CBRE estimates that the impact of the scheme on convenience goods retailing within Coalville town centre itself would be approximately 5.1%. The Council’s retail consultant considers that the actual trade impact on the town centre might be greater than this figure because the town has a range of national multiple and independent food and grocery operators (17 in total). Moreover CBRE’s trade impact calculations are derived on the basis that the proposed foodstore will have a turnover of £10.98 million a year. The trade impacts would be greater if assessed on the basis of the higher turnover estimated at £22.8 million per year. In addition to the above, consideration should also be given to the implications of approving the Parkridge proposals on the likelihood of the Belvoir Centre redevelopment taking place. In particular, there would appear to be the possibility that approval of a large foodstore on a site elsewhere from the car park site could prejudice future redevelopment potential of the car park site, and the Belvoir Centre in general. With the planning application submitted for a foodstore on the car park site, given the site’s Core location, it is not be necessary for the applicants to demonstrate need under PPS 6. As such, there would appear unlikely to be any planning policy impediment to the Belvoir Centre/car park scheme taking place regardless of the outcome of the current application (although the effect in such circumstances could be the possibility that total foodstore provision could exceed the level of need identified). Whilst, in planning policy terms, the effect of approval of the current application would not prejudice the potential redevelopment of the Belvoir Centre/car park, it will be noted from the objections lodged on behalf of the operators of the Belvoir Centre that they consider that the practical effect of approving an alternative foodstore scheme would be to preclude the redevelopment coming forward, with its associated regeneration benefits to the town. This concern is shared by the Council’s consultants, who draw attention to the advice in paragraph 3.22 of PPS 6. This section (relating to assessing impact) advises that "In particular, local planning authorities should consider the impact of the development on the centre or centres likely to be affected, taking account of: • the extent to which the development would put at risk the spatial planning strategy for the area and the strategy for a particular centre or network of centres, or alter its role in the hierarchy of centres; • the likely effect on future public or private sector investment needed to safeguard the vitality and viability of the centre or centres…." It is also noted that Local Plan Policy R1 requires that development outside of the town centre (or other specific locations specified in the policy) should not be detrimental to plans for new investment in redevelopment or revitalisation of existing centres.



35

As set out above, the proposed Belvoir Centre/car park scheme includes a new 80,000 square foot foodstore, and the draft masterplan describes this as an “anchor”. As such, it would seem that inclusion of a new large scale foodstore would represent a significant element of the proposed redevelopment. In view of this, and having regard to the advice provided by the Council’s consultants, it is considered that the absorption of the need for a new foodstore would indeed seem likely to prejudice the potential redevelopment of the Belvoir Centre/car park site. Overall in terms of impact, therefore, it is considered that an effect on town centre trade of the magnitude anticipated, coupled with the concerns regarding the sequential approach as set out above, would be unnecessarily harmful to the vitality and viability of the existing town centre. It is also considered that approval of the scheme could adversely affect the potential for the redevelopment of the Belvoir Centre/car park site, to the further future detriment of the town centre. Accessibility PPS6 notes that securing good accessibility usually means locating developments in town centres wherever possible, taking advantage of accessibility by public transport. The Council’s consultants note that the site is an edge of centre location and is served by buses from the town centre. It is concluded that the scheme is therefore acceptable in accessibility terms. Draft PPS 4 With regard to Draft PPS 4, the importance of the sequential assessment has been reinforced with this being the starting point in determining a planning application. However as with the existing PPS6 there is no change from the position that appropriate town centre uses in the centre or allocated in an up to date development plan do not need to apply the sequential test. Since there is no fundamental change to the approach taken to assessing potential sequentially preferable sites in Draft PPS4 to that in PPS6 in terms of their availability, suitability and viability it is not considered that the draft PPS4 would give rise to a different recommendation in relation to the Parkridge scheme, in that if the town centre site is available, suitable and viable then both edge of centre sites fail the sequential test in both PPS6 and draft PPS4. There is no material change in the Draft PPS4 to the definition of primary and secondary frontages as it is stated in respect of the local planning approach to town centres that local planning authorities should – ‘Define the extent of the primary shopping area and the town centre on their proposals map and consider distinguishing between primary and secondary frontages in designated town centres with policies that make clear which uses will be permitted in such locations. Primary frontages should contain a high proportion of retail uses while secondary frontages provide a greater opportunity for flexibility and a diversity of uses.’ The impact test is more detailed than the current PPS6 and as with PPS6 it is made clear that the cumulative impact of schemes needs to be assessed. The needs test is no longer a stand alone test for determining planning applications although under point 6 of the new impact assessment it remains necessary to take account of expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years ahead in assessing the forecast diversion of trade from centres. In addition considerations relating to the scale and accessibility of developments form part of the impact test. In addition the impact test has been reinforced with specific requirements to assess whether the proposal will limit CO2 emissions over the lifetime of the development, the impact on existing and planned investment in centres and whether the proposal secures a high quality



36

and inclusive design. Therefore in terms of the concern regarding the sequential test, diversion of trade from the centre, and subsequent impact on the town centre including risking potential investment from development of the sequentially preferable site, there would not be any major change in the way the applications need to be considered in line with Draft PPS4. Given that PPS 4 is still in draft form, nothing in the draft document outweighs current advice in PPS 6. Conclusions in Respect of Retail Issues To summarise the retail policy position, therefore, it is considered that there is need for the development, the proposal is of an appropriate scale for the catchment proposed to be served, and that the site is also reasonably accessible by public transport. However, whilst it is not considered that there is persuasive evidence that the sequentially preferable car park site would come forward within a reasonable time period, it is considered that the apparent availability and suitability of the Ford garage site does not overcome its failure to meet the sequential test. Furthermore, in view of this conclusion, it is considered that the (not inconsiderable) impact on the existing town centre would not be justified, and could lead to unwarranted harm to the vitality and viability of the town centre. Finally, approval of the scheme could prejudice the potential redevelopment of the Belvoir Centre/car park, to the long-term detriment of the town centre. In policy terms whilst the application site is subject to policies which support, amongst other things, retail uses (Policies R1 and R8 c of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan), these policies do not carry more weight than the more recent PPS6. Therefore, the failure of the application to meet the sequential test and the impact assessment under PPS6 outweighs the importance of the acceptable land uses in various Local Plan policies. Principle of Housing Policy H4/1 of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan states that proposals for the development of land for housing will be determined on the basis of a sequential approach to the release of land to satisfy housing need. The first priority land is previously developed land and buildings within the town centres of Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Coalville. The application site comprises land and buildings within the settlement boundary of Coalville and therefore there is a presumption in favour of residential development at this location and Policy H4/1 is complied with. Policy H6 of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan requires a type and design to achieve as high a net density as possible taking into account factors such as access, mix of housing types and design and layout. Within Coalville a minimum density sought is 40 dwellings per hectare. The proposal would result in a mixed use of land with retail, residential and parking all provided. The residential element would provide up to 63 units. Given the relatively limited size of the site and the other uses proposed it is considered that the achievable residential density could be acceptable and that the site, with the other uses, could not sustain a significantly higher density. As such it is considered that the proposal complies with Policy H6. Policy H8 of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan and the Council’s Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (adopted October 2007) require that where there is a demonstrable need for affordable housing the Council will negotiate with the applicants/developers to secure the provision of an element of affordable housing as part of any



37

development proposal. The sought level of affordable housing for this proposal is 30%. The proposal, although in outline, provides a maximum number of 63 residential units with the indicative layout plans showing 18 affordable units. This provision would be slightly below the sought 30% and therefore the Council would seek to secure a total of 19 affordable units as it is the practice of the Council to round numbers up. The units indicated do not mirror the accommodation contained in the Council’s waiting list in terms of unit size and the rented/low cost ownership split. However, given the willingness of the applicant to provide affordable housing, and that all housing numbers, layout etc. are all reserved matters, it is considered that suitable provision could be achieved through a section 106 agreement and therefore the proposal can comply with Policy H8 and the Council’s Affordable Housing SPD. Design and Visual Impact Whilst the application is in outline a detailed design framework has been submitted and the applicant states it is envisaged that development would be brought forward in accordance with this. The indicative plans show a landmark building with a feature tower at each end on the Hotel Street elevation. As proposed this would provide a strong visual gateway into the town and would have a positive relationship with the street through a strong and continuous building line. This would be further enhanced by the high proportion of active frontages achieved by wrapping smaller scale commercial units around the building’s core function, the foodstore. The approach to parking and servicing is also welcomed as they would have a limited visual impact. Although further detailed design work would be required to ensure the indicative plans became reality the scale, massing, layout and appearance set out in the application are supported in principle. The proposal therefore accords with Policies H7 and E4 of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan and the building design-related elements of RSS 8 Policy 2. In addition, as part of a joint initiative with the District Council, the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment led an Enquiry by Design master planning workshop in the town in June 2009, with a view to developing a long-term vision for the redevelopment of Coalville Town Centre, the contents of which are intended to form the Coalville Town Centre Regeneration Strategy Report (expected to be delivered by the end of 2009). It is intended that the Regeneration Strategy Report will set out a vision for how the town should develop over the coming decades in response to the challenges revealed during the master planning workshop. The Foundation has advocated the development of the Four Squares Proposal, a concept of four squares (namely Marlborough Square, Memorial Square, “Market Square” (a new space located at the eastern end of the existing Belvoir Centre) and “Stenson Square” (a new space located at the junction of Whitwick Road and London Road)), linked by coherent and vibrant streets, developed as a design solution to the currently disconnected pedestrian and vehicular network and degraded public spaces within the town centre. However, it is considered that the Parkridge scheme will not prejudice this long term vision for the redevelopment of Coalville Town Centre and therefore the proposal is acceptable in this respect. Impact on Amenity The site currently comprises a mix of uses including commercial and retail. Surrounding land uses include the Council offices, further retail and commercial and residential on upper floors. The site is within the town with Hotel Street and Whitwick Road being relatively busy roads. The proposal would result in a relatively high density scheme with the proposed uses likely to generate a far higher number of customers compared to the current uses. Although the impact in terms of noise and disturbance would be greater, given the existing uses, traffic and location, it is not considered that the use of the proposed buildings would be unreasonable on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings and land. Furthermore, the majority of



38

surrounding uses are non residential and include industrial buildings bordering on Old Station Close and along the rear elevation. The proposed scale of the buildings would be considerably more extensive than the current buildings, especially along the Hotel Street frontage. This elevation would also incorporate the majority of the fenestration serving the flats. There would be a greater potential for overlooking or loss of privacy to the buildings on the southern side of Hotel Street. However, the buildings would be separated by the highway and the current relationship involves potential overlooking. The remaining flats, fronting onto Whitwick Road, would look over the land to the front of the Council offices. On balance it therefore the impact of the indicative layout, uses and design, would result in an acceptable relationship with the adjacent buildings and the proposal complies with policy E3 of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan. Access / Highway Safety The indicative proposal comprises a visitor/resident access and service access into the site from Whitwick Road with first floor parking providing a total of up to 321 spaces. Of these 286 would be allocated for the foodstore, of which 10 would be for staff on a rota basis, no spaces for the retail and A5 units and 35 spaces for the residential element. The application is supported by a Transport Assessment which includes baseline surveys carried out in November and December 2007. The Highway Authority has raised concerns that these dates did not represent neutral months. Notwithstanding this, the proposed development would result in a material increase in traffic on the surrounding highway network. The existing development generates the following peak movements: 1000-1100 Saturday 40 movements; 1600-1630 Weekday 21 movements; The proposed development is predicted to generate the following peak movements: 1200-1300 Saturday 678 movements; 1700-1800 Weekday 716 movements. The Highway Authority has raised concerns that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that an appropriate level of on-site parking provision would be made. In terms of the proposed supermarket, based on the maximum parking standards, 466 spaces (1 space per 14 square metres) would be required. This would result in a shortfall of 180 spaces. The applicant’s transport consultant has justified the parking provision on the grounds that it accords with the current policies, including PPG13 Transport, which seeks to minimise parking in new development as part of a package of planning and transport measures to promote sustainable travel choice. Measures proposed include the following: • provision of tactile paving at the existing dropped crossing on High Street; • re-surfacing a section of footway adjacent to the level crossing on High Street; • consideration of a new puffin crossing on High Street; • the provision of 29 cycle stands for use by residents and foodstore customers (a total of 34 spaces would be required to conform with adopted standards: 24 for retail (1 per 500 square metres for staff, 1 per 1000 square metres for customers) and 12 for the residential element (1 per 5 dwellings), therefore there would be a shortfall of 5; • bus lay-by on Whitwick Road to replace the existing on-carriageway stop;



39

• bus lay-by on High Street; • displaced disabled parking bays relocated to Belvoir Shopping Centre car park; • production of a Travel Plan for the supermarket element; and • production of a Travel Plan for the residential element. The Highway Authority maintains that the measures proposed to promote this choice are not sufficient justification for an overall reduction in on-site parking of 43%. In terms of the smaller retail/food and drink units the proposals would not provide dedicated parking. The Transport Assessment suggests that staff and customers could park in the supermarket car park or a public car park within the town and that the existing retail units do not have any parking. The Highway Authority does not support this justification as the development is new build and presents the opportunity to include off street parking and that the mitigation measures do not justify zero on-site parking. Based on the maximum parking standards 36 spaces (1 per 20 square metres) would be required for the smaller retail units and the food and drink use. For the residential element 35 spaces are proposed. The Highway Authority state that based on the Department for Communities and Local Government Residential Car Parking Research 80, spaces would be required (42 x 2 bedroom flats= 57 spaces, 12 x 1 bedroom flats=13 spaces and 9 studio flats=10 spaces). The transport consultant has justified the provision by stating the residents could choose to park in the nearby public car parks and the lack of a guaranteed space or the security of the parked car would be a deterrent to car ownership. The Highway Authority has questioned this argument. Furthermore, the Highway Authority state that the Transport Assessment submitted details the parking accumulation in the proposed supermarket car park. The figures include only supermarket customers and suggest that the development would not be able to accommodate all cars indicating an overspill between 1000 and 1200 on a weekday and 1100 to 1200 on a Saturday even without demand from supermarket staff, residents, residents visitor parking, staff and customers of the other units and public parking. In terms of servicing the proposed servicing bay would accommodate 3 service vehicles (2 loading, 1 waiting), this is below the requirement of 6 spaces (1 per 1000 square metres). However, the Highway Authority accepts that deliveries could be scheduled and that it would not be in the best interests of the supermarket operator not to regulate deliveries. It is proposed that the retail and A5 units would be serviced from a loading bay within the public highway on Hotel Street. Leicestershire County Council guidance states provision must be made within the site for service and delivery vehicles to be loaded and unloaded clear of the highway. No such provision has been made and the Highway Authority is of the view that the proposed method of servicing would impact on the public highway. The Highway Authority conclude that the application should be refused on the grounds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that an appropriate level of on-site car parking provision has been made together with adequate off-street loading/unloading facilities to cater for the size and number of delivery vehicles likely to visit the site. The lack of such provision could lead to vehicles loading and unloading or parking in the public highway which would not be in the best interests of highway safety. In support of the application in terms of highway and parking issues the Agent states the following:



40

• existing town centre car parking can be relied on to allow a lower provision of parking for the proposed development; • a car park management plan would be produced which can be used to control the level of parking demand, for example by restricting the permissible length of stay in the car park; • policy supports the use of parking restraint to encourage people to travel by public transport and PPG13 indicates that availability of parking has the greatest influence on how people travel; • it is realistic to assume that a percentage of the flats would be occupied by people without a car especially as a proportion would be affordable units; and • it is proposed to provide servicing for the small retail units from the road so that an attractive frontage could be provided and the proposal provides a lay-by so that traffic could flow in both directions on London Road while a vehicle is unloading. The applicants transport consultant’s have now submitted an additional package of transport information and plans which seeks to address the concerns of the Highway Authority in relation to the impact of the proposals on the Memorial Square junction and lack of on site servicing and car parking provision. The accompanying letter is summarised as follows: “………as a result of issues raised in relation to the ASDA application, LCC expressed concerns regarding the operation of the Memorial Square traffic signals, and asked for that junction to be looked at again. This work was undertaken, and was submitted to LCC by letter dated 5th May 2009. Following some comments received from LCC by email dated 26th May 2009, IMA submitted revised assessments by email dated 27th May 2009 and received confirmation by email dated 15th June 2009 that LCC were happy with the assessments and the improvement proposed. In terms of the 3 outstanding issues, IMA submitted additional details regarding likely servicing levels to the small shop units, together with an enlarged design for the proposed servicing lay-by on Hotel Street by email dated 4th June 2009 and LCC confirmed by email dated 17th June 2009 that the revised lay-by was considered acceptable in light of the information supplied. This leaves the outstanding issues to be the proposed levels of parking. I believe the issue of the residential parking has been resolved because the level of affordable housing has been set and will be secured through the S106. Given this, the required level of residential parking, taking into account the affordable element, reduces to 34 spaces. We have indicated 35 residential spaces previously and hence sufficient residential parking can be provided. With regard to the foodstore parking, this issue remains outstanding, although again, hopefully the car park management plan will go a long way to over come the County Council's concerns. As you are aware, the proposed level of parking to the foodstore is considerably below the County Council's maximum standard, but is in line with the parking accumulations we have assessed using the TRICs database for stores in similar locations – we show a very minimal shortfall at peak times. However the store would be located within the town centre which is very well served by public transport. The car park will be controlled through the use of an Automatic Number Plate Recognition system, which would be used to enforce a maximum duration of stay which will permit Tesco shoppers to undertake linked trips with the town centre, but prevent long stay parking. It must also be remembered that as well as those parking in the Tesco car park being able to shop within the town centre, there will equally be those that will



41

park in other town centre car parks and shop at Tesco. In this respect we have observed the usage of other town centre car parks and have found there to be plenty of spare capacity. PPG13 sets out that local authorities should ensure that, as part of a package of planning and transport measures, levels of parking provided in association with development will promote sustainable transport choices, and they should not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish other than in exceptional circumstances which might include for example where there are significant implications for road safety which cannot be resolved through the introduction or enforcement of on-street parking controls. Importantly on this issue, Martin Robeson acting directly for Tesco, the named operator, has told the District Council and County Council that Tesco is happy with the level of parking proposed given the town centre location. We have committed to providing a Car Park Management Plan which sets out how the car park will be controlled, its usage monitored and if necessary, the details of the control modified to ensure an efficient operation. Hence we consider the proposed level of parking fully accords with current policies which look to minimise parking levels and encourage use of non-car modes of travel, whilst promoting the town centre. I have today sent an email to LCC enclosing updated residential parking calculations, revised drafts of residential and retail travel plans, and also responses to LCC queries on the car park management plan. Our intention is to quickly revise the car park management plan once I have discussed our responses with LCC. However, remembering that this is an outline application, these documents can only be developed as drafts as changes may be required as a result of reserved matters applications. We would expect the need for these plans to be dealt with by condition and LCC has already indicated that the form of condition for these plans would be that 'no part of the development shall be occupied until details......have been submitted and agreed in writing'. The above covers the latest position, including our submissions to the County Council. I will of course keep you informed should agreement be reached with LCC on residential and foodstore parking in the next couple of days…..” Finally, in view of the updating of the package of highway measures that has been proposed, I have set out… a schedule of the relevant improvement plans, which includes a new plan of the Hotel Street/High Street area showing the accessibility improvements together with the access junction and Memorial Square signal junction proposal which I will forward to LCC…” The drawings that are referred to in the above letter are now out of date and plans showing a revised layout for Whitwick Road which includes the re-location of the existing bus stop and the provision of a taxi drop off/pick up point, a revised service lay-by on Hotel Street which has now been agreed, the provision of a puffin crossing on Hotel Street, and improvements to various bus stops have now been submitted. As well as reviewing the revised drawings, the applicants transport consultants have also re-issued a residential travel plan, supermarket travel plan, revised parking calculations for the residential element, and information that will need to be fed into a revised car park management strategy for the Highway Authority’s consideration. With regard to the impact of the proposal on the Memorial Square junction, the Highway



42

Authority has confirmed that the results of the modelling and proposed layout for Memorial Square, which involves relatively minor modifications are acceptable. With regard to servicing, the Highway Authority has also accepted the proposal for an 18m lay-by on Hotel Street to serve the retail and A5 units on the Hotel Street frontage. The lay-by will need to be supported by a Traffic Regulation Order restricting its use to loading/unloading. Whist this TRO would not prevent the use of the lay-by by others who could demonstrate that they are loading/unloading, it is considered that only on the rare occasion would the lay-by be occupied and cause an issue for deliveries to the non-food retail units. With regard to car parking, the applicants have now submitted a car park management strategy and the Highway Authority now understand that 19 residential units are to be allocated as non-owner occupied social housing under the terns of any s106 agreement. On this basis the Highway Authority has accepted a reduction in parking provision for the residential element of the scheme in accordance with DCLG document "Residential Car Parking Research". The Highway Authority also understand that under the terms of the agreement all 35 car parking spaces provided for the 63 residential units will remain unallocated. On this basis the Highway Authority has accepted a reduction in parking provision for the residential element of the scheme in accordance with DCLG document "Residential Car Parking Research". On this basis, the Highway Authority no longer raise objections on the grounds of a shortfall in car parking provision. In addition, while there is little doubt that the proposed development would generate a considerable increase in traffic and therefore demand for off-street parking, the site occupies an edge of town centre location with a number of public car parks within walking distance and the town is also well served by buses. As such there is no justification to refuse the application on the grounds of inadequate off-street car parking provision. However, Members are advised that the County Highway Authority has clarified that its comments relate solely to this planning application, and that the collective impact of this and other rival applications has not been considered. It is therefore concluded that the proposal, assessed solely in relation to this application, would comply with policies T3, T8 and T13 of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan and Policy 48 of the East Midlands Regional Plan 2009. However, this would not take into account the cumulative highway implications should the sequentially preferable Belvoir Centre site be delivered. This cumulative work has not yet been undertaken, as at the time of drafting this report, a new Transport Assessment was being prepared in support of the Belvoir Centre application (ref. 09/00359/FULM) following the raising of significant Local Highway Authority concerns in respect of the originally submitted Assessment’s robustness. Whilst no assessment has therefore been undertaken in respect of the Parkridge proposals in combination with the development of the Belvoir Centre / car park site, Members will nevertheless need to bear in mind this potential issue. At this time, however, it would not be considered appropriate to refuse the Parkridge scheme on this basis given that the Local Planning Authority does not currently have any information to substantiate any such concerns. Members are also advised that the Council has commissioned Transport Consultants to carry out a cumulative traffic impact assessment of the Parkridge and Asda proposals, and the conclusions of this are reported on the next agenda item in relation to the Asda proposals. However, the conclusions of this assessment are not pertinent to the Parkridge application as it



43

is considered to be sequentially superior to the Asda site. Flood Risk The Environment Agency originally objected on the grounds that the drainage strategy stated that the proposal would result in surface water runoff which would exceed the capacity of the drainage system. A Flood Risk Assessment was submitted together with a Surface Water Drainage Strategy. The Environment Agency accepted the assessment of flood risk at the site and the principle proposals to limit surface water discharge from the site during all events up to the 00 plus 30% (for climate change) rainfall event, by use of underground and above ground storage. The use of green roof areas was also welcomed. As such the objection was removed, subject to conditions. Nature Conservation Natural England are of the opinion that the proposal would not be likely to have a significant effect on the features of the SSSI’ within a 5 km radius and are also satisfied with the use of the standard extended Phase 1 Habitat Assessment and note that it indicated no presence of badger, great crested newt or water vole. However Natural England noted that a comprehensive external survey examining all building aspects could not be undertaken and that no internal access was available. They state that provided these surveys are undertaken prior to the application being determined and these demonstrate that bats would not be affected or that potential effects would be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated the objection could be removed. Notwithstanding this objection it is considered that the use of the site is fragmented with a number of different buildings and uses and undertaking such surveys at this time is problematic. It is therefore recommended that these surveys be carried out prior to any development commencing. Section 106 Contributions The application triggers contributions which would require a section 106 agreement. The indicative plans show the provision of 18 affordable units. Whilst the Council would seek an additional unit, to achieve the 30% provision, the 18 illustrated demonstrates the willingness of the developer to provide affordable housing as part of the scheme. Other sought contributions include the following: • CCTV/Police – seek contribution of £606 per residential living unit and £7 per square metre on non residential development to be used to address the cumulative effects of numbers of housing and commercial developments over a geographical area, increase efficiencies associated with patrol, detection and prevention of crime, provide additional vehicles and other resources, extend communication infrastructures, provide CCTV cameras, provide new or supplementary buildings to house resources and enhance crime reduction through secure by design principles; • National Forest - £10,000 per ha of gross development area in lieu of woodland planting on site; • Affordable Housing – 19 units, seek 10 x 1 bed and 4 x 2 bed social rented apartments and 5 x 2 bed apartments; • LCC waste - £2,172 towards civic amenity infrastructure at Coalville; • LCC Libraries - £2,850 towards costs of an enhanced programme of refurbishment and improvements to facilities; • NHS – requested further consultation prior to proposing a figure;



44

• Leisure - £69,300 towards the redevelopment of Hermitage Leisure Centre. In addition contributions may be sought for the following: children’s play equipment, town centre improvements, public realm, town centre gateway and enhancements, highways and public transport and travel plans. The applicants have now offered the following contributions in draft Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms: • Public Realm Improvements - £136,000 payable to the District Council upon store opening to be spent on public realm improvements within the vicinity of the site. Any monies not spent within 5 years from the date of store opening will be returned to Tesco/Parkridge. • Shopfront Grant Scheme - £100,000 fund to be created and retained by Tesco/Parkridge upon store opening. Monies to be transferred to independent shop owners within the vicinity of the site (see plan) upon the application of a grant following the issue of the respective planning permissions for the shop front improvements. Grants to cease 5 years from the date of store opening or once the fund is emptied, whichever is earlier. • CCTV - £70,742 payable to the District Council upon store opening to be spent on the development, implementation or management of CCTV within the vicinity of the site. Any monies not spent within 5 years from the date of store opening will be returned to Tesco/Parkridge. • National Forest Planting - £12,400 payable to the District Council upon store opening to be spent on the National Forest Programme. Any monies not spent within 5 years from the date of store opening will be returned to Tesco/Parkridge. • Public Transport - £60,000 payable to the County Council upon store opening to be spent on the installation of real time information for the two existing bus stops on Hotel Street and High Street and real time information display within the store. Any monies not spent within 5 years from the date of store opening will be returned to Tesco/Parkridge. • Coalville Car Club - £10,000 payable to the District Council upon occupation of the first residential unit to be spent in consultation with the County Council on the promotion, development, implementation or management of a Coalville Car Club. Any monies not spent within 5 years from the date of occupation of the first residential unit will be returned to Tesco/Parkridge. • Travel Plan - Foodstore Travel Plan and Residential Travel Plan both to be finalised in consultation with the County Council within 3 months of the opening of the store and occupation of the first residential unit respectively. • Shop mobility - To be incorporated into the store design. • Affordable Housing - 19 units to be transferred to an RSL upon completion of work (transfer value to be agreed). If an RSL is not forthcoming or Social Housing Grant is not available, the dwellings to be sold as low cost market housing. • LCC waste - £2,172 payable to the County Council upon occupation of the first residential unit to be spent on improvements to the local waste collection service. Any monies not spent within 5 years from the date of occupation of the first residential unit will be returned to



45

Tesco/Parkridge. • LCC Libraries - £2,850 payable to the County Council upon occupation of the first residential unit to be spent on improvements to Coalville Library. Any monies not spent within 5 years from the date of occupation of the first residential unit will be returned to Tesco/Parkridge. • Children’s play equipment - £69,300 payable to the District Council upon occupation of the first residential unit to be spent on improvements to Hermitage Leisure Centre. Any monies not spent within 5 years from the date of occupation of the first residential unit will be returned to Tesco/Parkridge. • Tourist Information Centre - £70,000 payable to the District Council and provide a fully fitted out unit on-site rent free for 3 years, all to be delivered upon store opening. Any monies not spent within 5 years from the date of store opening will be returned to Tesco/Parkridge (see below). Total Financial Contribution - £548,464 These contributions are likely to be acceptable and would form the basis of the Section 106 Agreement should permission be granted. However, at the time of writing this report, officers are still considering whether the contribution for the public realm works indicated above would be sufficient to provide a high quality scheme. With regard to the offer to provide a tourist information centre (TIC) within the store, this could be considered to be ancillary to the proposed foodstore and have a functional relationship with the development as it would help to draw in people to the foodstore and subsequently the town centre if the development were permitted. If Members were minded to approve this proposal, the provision of a TIC would also be consistent with Policy R8 (c) of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan which allows for shopping and related purposes on this site. With regard to the financial contribution of £70,000 towards the ongoing running of the TIC, Members will nevertheless have to consider the amount of weight to be attached to this contribution in reaching their decision bearing in mind the tests in Circular 05/05 Planning Obligations. They must consider the extent to which this obligation is necessary to make the scheme acceptable if it would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms. As the scheme, as recommended, is considered to be unacceptable in retail planning terms and the TIC contribution is not wholly necessary to make the scheme acceptable, the weight attached to the proposed contribution should be limited. However, if Members are satisfied that there are other sound planning reasons why planning permission should be granted for the proposed development, it would not be unreasonable for this contribution to be included in the Section 106 Agreement. In the interests of encouraging sustainable travel to and from the site, the Highway Authority has stated that Section106 contributions would be required to secure travel packs and bus passes and for the introduction of real time information displays. The real time information displays would be secured by the public transport contribution stated above and the travel packs and bus passes would be secured, either by condition or Section 106, following further discussions between the applicant and officers should Members be minded to approve the application. Conclusions Overall, and having fully assessed the additional information submitted by the applicants



46

consultants, it is still considered that the Parkridge/Tesco scheme would be unacceptable, having regard to the continued concerns over sequential approach as highlighted in this report and the impact on existing centres (including prospects for redevelopment of the existing town centre). Refusal of outline planning permission is therefore recommended. RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE, for the following reason(s): 1 Planning Policy Statement 6 - Planning for Town Centres requires, amongst others,

applicants to demonstrate that there are no more central sites for the development. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that the sequentially preferable site is not available, suitable or viable and, as such, the proposals would be harmful to the vitality and viability of Coalville town centre, contrary to the provisions of PPS 6.

2 Planning Policy Statement 6 - Planning for Town Centres requires, amongst others,

applicants to demonstrate that there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres. By virtue of (i) the anticipated impact on trade within the existing town centre, particularly given the presence of a sequentially preferable site referred to above; and (ii) the impacts of the proposed development on the prospects of redeveloping the town centre, the proposed development would have a materially adverse impact on the existing town centre area, contrary to the provisions of PPS 6.



47

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of foodstore (Class A1) with associated access, parking, landscaping and ancillary facilities.

Report Item No A2

Land At Market Street, Baker Street And Wolsey Road Coalville Leicestershire LE67 3TS

Application Reference 08/00363/FULM

Applicant: Asda Stores Ltd. Case Officer: James Knightley Recommendation: REFUSE

Date Registered 12 March 2008

Target Decision Date7 May 2008

Site Location

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ©copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence LA 100019329)



48

1. Proposals and Background This is a full application for the erection of a food and non-food retail store of total sales floorspace 8,017 square metres (total net sales area 4,366 square metres), car parking, landscaping, petrol filling station, new access and ancillary facilities. The site is currently occupied by various employment-type uses, including the former needle factory, a tyre garage and offices, together with an electricity substation and local authority public conveniences. It is located adjacent to other employment-type uses and the local authority recycling centre. The western part of the site is currently unused “scrub”. The application was reported to the Planning Committee on 7 April 2009, with a recommendation to refuse on the grounds of (i) the failure to demonstrate that no sequentially preferable sites were available, suitable or viable; (ii) the impact on the existing centre and prospects for redevelopment; and (iii) the potential impact on the surrounding highway network. The Planning Committee subsequently resolved that that application be deferred for three months so as to allow the highways issues to be discussed with the County Highway Authority. A further report updating on the then current position was also presented to the Planning Committee at the meeting of 7 July 2009. As part of the proposals, and as reported to the Planning Committee on 7 April 2009, it was previously intended to undertake a reconfiguration of existing roads in the vicinity of the application site, including Memorial Square, Wolsey Road and Market Street. This reconfiguration would have included alterations to the existing roundabout at the Mantle Lane / Wolsey Road junction, and the re-routing of traffic through Memorial Square. Insofar as Memorial Square is concerned, two-way traffic would have passed through the eastern side of the Square (i.e. the existing pedestrianised area to the east of the memorial), with the existing road to the west of the memorial becoming a bus interchange area. Following the deferral, the scheme has been amended significantly in this regard such that it is now proposed to remove the existing Mantle Lane / Wolsey Road roundabout and replace it with a new signal-controlled junction in this location. In addition, the existing pedestrianised area to the east of the memorial would become a three land carriageway for south bound vehicles; northbound traffic (two lanes plus a bus lane) would be routed around the western side of the memorial. As per the previously-reported scheme, it is proposed to access the store via both Market Street (customer vehicles) and Wolsey Road (service vehicles). Existing premises on both roads would therefore continue to be accessed via those roads, notwithstanding the proposed alterations to the existing junctions. The proposals have been the subject of significant amendments to the building design during the course of the application’s consideration. As amended, the proposed development includes a retail building of maximum height 14 metres (approx) incorporating the main retail area at first floor level, accessed via “travelators” and lifts located within a double height glazed entrance lobby. Much of the building would be erected on “stilts” such that the greater part of the on-site car parking provision would be located underneath the store. Whilst much of the building is based upon a clad “box” type structure, various additions have been made to the building so as to achieve a more contemporary and responsive structure including glazing, timber screens and the use of panelling of various shades of green to the western elevation so as to add interest and break up the mass of that elevation.



49

2. Publicity 167 neighbours have been notified. Site Notice displayed 15 July 2008 Press Notice published 8 July 2009 3. Consultations County Highway Authority consulted 28 March 2008 National Forest Company consulted 28 March 2008 Natural England consulted 28 March 2008 Severn Trent Water Limited consulted 28 March 2008 Derby City Council consulted 28 March 2008 South Derbyshire District Council consulted 28 March 2008 County Archaeologist consulted 28 March 2008 County Planning Authority consulted 28 March 2008 Erewash Borough Council consulted 28 March 2008 Rushcliffe Borough Council consulted 28 March 2008 Charnwood Borough Council consulted 28 March 2008 Head Of Leisure And Culture consulted 28 March 2008 Blaby District Council consulted 28 March 2008 Lichfield District Council consulted 28 March 2008 North Warwickshire Borough Council consulted 28 March 2008 Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council consulted 28 March 2008 Development Plans consulted 28 March 2008 Environment Agency consulted 28 March 2008 East Midlands Regional Assembly consulted 28 March 2008 Head of Environmental Protection consulted 28 March 2008 Police Architectural Liaison Officer consulted 28 March 2008 Cable Safe - Central Networks consulted 28 March 2008 Head Of Street Management North West Leicestershire District consulted 28 March 2008 Leicester City Council Planning Dept consulted 28 March 2008 LCC - Passenger Transport Unit consulted 28 March 2008 National Forest Company consulted 10 October 2008 Head Of Street Management North West Leicestershire District consulted 10 October 2008 Police Architectural Liaison Officer consulted 10 October 2008 Cable Safe - Central Networks consulted 10 October 2008 County Highway Authority consulted 29 June 2009 Network Rail consulted 21 May 2009 Stefan Kruczkowski – Urban designer NWLDC County Highway Authority consulted 28 May 2009 Network Rail consulted 28 May 2009 Cable Safe - Central Networks consulted 28 May 2009 4. Summary of Representations Received 16 representations have been received objecting on the following grounds: - Difficulties in accessing nearby businesses created by proposed access arrangements - Unsafe siting of a proposed taxi / bus waiting area - Scheme should be widened to include the redevelopment of the Red House public house, the Care and Repair office and existing terraced dwellings - Increased traffic / congestion



50

- Limited improvements to public transport / cycling infrastructure - Overdevelopment of site - Reliance of the site on road transport deliveries, with the area accessed via unsuitable roads - Impact on vitality and viability of the town centre - No need demonstrated for proposed filling station - Limited landscaping measures - Proposals should include adjacent land / units to the north - exclusion will turn that area into a backwater, thus hastening its decline, and would result in a lost opportunity for the comprehensive development of the Town Centre Service Area - Design concerns - Would conflict with the aspirations of the Coalville Town Centre Vision - Too far from the town centre - Would draw shoppers away from the Belvoir Centre which already has many vacant units - Would result in closure of other shops - Scheme should enable continued access to the adjacent health centre - Coalville already has 4 supermarkets (Morrisons, Aldi, Netto and Lidl) - Asda’s claims re traffic delays are questionable - Clock Tower traffic lights are already a “traffic disaster.” - Questions the basis of the applicants’ claim of "increased delays only at peak times on Fridays" - Section 106 agreement needs to be in place before planning application is considered - Queries how many of the jobs would be full time and above the minimum wage - Research shows that large supermarkets eventually cause more local job losses than they create - Questions Asda’s evidence for claiming this scheme has the support of the majority of local residents - In 2006 an All Party Parliamentary Report stated that by 2015 there will be no independent convenience stores, newsagents or grocers left - Money spent in supermarkets benefits shareholders and management staff rather than staying in the local community thereby supporting local businesses and suppliers - Whilst jobs would be created, other jobs would be lost elsewhere - Impact of delivery vehicles on roads - Limited positive impact on the town centre by way of linked trips - Belvoir Centre scheme would be more appropriate as it would encourage town centre shop use - Loss of existing traditional buildings to make way for modern buildings would be inappropriate - Alterations to Memorial Square would result in an environment which would be busy and congested - Adverse impact on Memorial Square and upon the setting of the war memorial / access to it - Site could be re-used for residential or business use - Ethical objections to business practices of the parent company - Site unsuitable in terms of access - If Asda is permitted, the owners of the Belvoir Centre will claim that competition prevents them from developing In addition, the following concerns have been raised on behalf of owners of the Belvoir Centre and Morrisons supermarket: Belvoir Centre:



51

- Contrary to Local Plan Policy R15 which specifically excludes Class A1 retail uses on the site - The applicant's assessment that there is significant capacity to accommodate a store of the size proposed is contrary to the conclusions of the Council’s Retail Capacity Study 2007 – applicants’ assessment has significantly over-estimated the capacity for a new store - Only two sequentially preferable sites have been assessed in the applicants' report because the search has been limited to only those sites which are large enough to be able to accommodate the size and scale of development proposed in the above application rather than being flexible as per the advice in PPS 6 - Town Centre Car Park site could accommodate a foodstore if the footprint of the store and car parking requirements were reduced - Impact has overestimated the impact on main food stores and underestimated it on the town centre shops. Whilst the applicants’ assessment assumes the majority of trade will be diverted from other large foodstores (in particular Morrisons), there is insufficient evidence that that store is overtrading to the level estimated - Do not agree that any impact would be insignificant and offset by spin off trade from the new store as the site is not well linked to the rest of the town centre - Proposed layout does not integrate the site with the rest of the town centre - Proposed store is too large for the site and represents overdevelopment - If approved, a condition should be attached to restrict the size of the store and convenience / comparison floorspace split - It is intended to pursue redevelopment options to provide a substantial expansion and upgrading of the existing Belvoir Shopping Centre, with a formal planning application for the proposed scheme expected to be submitted in the spring of 2009 - The proposed redevelopment of the Belvoir Shopping Centre would include a new food superstore, the construction of a range of A1 retail units adjacent to the foodstore, the provision of a cinema, the development of A3 units fronting onto an upgraded public square at the point where the existing and extended Centre would meet, a new pedestrianised thoroughfare leading from the existing Centre to the new foodstore, car park facilities (including outside of retailing hours), enhancement of existing open space to the south of the centre, two small areas of residential development overlooking the new public park. The proposed redevelopment would be accessed via a new road bridge from Hotel Street / London Road crossing the railway line. A parcel of land would also be safeguarded for the construction of a railway station, should passenger rail services be re-introduced on the route - On the basis of the applicant's own figures there is only a quantitative need for one further foodstore in Coalville - Applicants' assessment of the sequentially preferable car park site dismisses the site as being inappropriate for the proposed development for a number of reasons. In particular, the objectors consider that (i) the site is large enough to accommodate both a major foodstore and a range of other retail and town centre uses, (ii) the scheme is viable and (iii) land within the ownership of the Council would be able to be incorporated within the proposed scheme - Coalville Town Centre Vision document is neither part of the statutory Development Plan nor a Supplementary Planning Document, although, in any event, the objectors’ proposals are not incompatible with the suggestions in the Vision document, in that the scheme would deliver significant new comparison retail development, as well as a new foodstore, on a central site - Proposed Asda scheme would prejudice the likelihood of development on the sequentially-preferable car park site of which the development of a foodstore is a fundamental component of the deliverability of the car park scheme as a whole - Given that there is need for only one additional superstore in the town, the opportunity to regenerate the town centre as a whole would be wholly undermined. If the Asda application were approved, the objectors advise that they would be unable to proceed with the proposed town centre expansion and the opportunity for the major enhancement and upgrading of the town centre would be lost.



52

Morrisons: - District Council’s Retail Study identified a high level of retention of local convenience spending and a consequential low residual “capacity” at 2016 of insufficient to support either the Asda proposals, or those for the Ford garage site - Do not agree with the amount of capacity suggested by the applicants, as the catchment area drawn is very extensive and also underestimates the benchmark turnover and trade draw of existing stores. Considers it unreasonable to assume that all of the expenditure from this area should be spent in Coalville - Benchmark turnover of Morrisons has been significantly underestimated by the applicants – it assumes that the Morrisons store only derives 75% of its turnover from the catchment area (but then suggests that the proposed Asda (which would be larger than he Morrisons) would draw 85% to 90% of its turnover form the same area). Morrisons considers that its store also draws 90% of its trade from the catchment area. - There is insufficient capacity in convenience goods expenditure to support the Asda proposal, with an estimated convenience goods turnover in excess of £50m per annum - Potentially adverse impact on existing retailers, including the town centre - Proposal is inappropriate in terms of scale - Estimate of potential “clawback” is too high, and therefore underestimates the impact of the proposal on stores in Coalville Town Centre - Proposals could lead to the closure of one or more of the existing foodstores in Coalville Town Centre. 32 representations have been received supporting the proposed development on the following grounds: - Regeneration potential to the town centre - Accessible location - More accessible than the Ford garage site - Employment opportunities - Good value and quality of goods - Better value provided by Asda than potential operators of the Ford garage site - Enhancement of a derelict site - Would improve traffic flow - Site is in the centre of Coalville - Proposed development is the most appropriate for Coalville in preference to the Belvoir Centre proposals which does little for the town and its management to date gives little confidence that it will be undertaken - Arguments put forward on behalf of the Belvoir Centre are an abuse of its monopolistic position and against the best interests of Coalville - Potential Belvoir Centre development will not take place for a number of reasons, including: no named operator, difficulties regarding access, no incentive for operators to undertake the proposals and the current economic situation - Asda site is not “out of town” - Proposals would address environmental issues currently affecting this area of the town (building deterioration, flooding of Mantle Lane, untidy area around the railway bridge, litter, vacant units) - Scheme preferable to Belvoir Centre proposals - Tesco proposals not as far advanced as Asda’s - Proposals would enable the market to be restored to an outdoor facility - Public sector funding has achieved little regeneration - No reason why more than one scheme cannot be permitted



53

- District Council does not have best interests of Coalville at heart - Belvoir Centre does not need to be expanded In addition, a petition of support has been forwarded by Councillor Wyatt containing approximately 1,600 signatures. The petition calls upon the Council to support the planning application as it would help to clean up an area of Coalville that needs investment, and would bring in an additional 400 jobs. The Coalville Town Centre partnership has commented on all three proposed food store applications and its conclusions are summarised as follows: Belvoir Centre - The Belvoir Centre proposals will have the greatest and most positive impact on the town centre given the scale of the suggested development that includes a hotel, shops, cinema, town square, park and anchor food-store - Concerns are raised about the deliverability, site assembly and access over the railway - Attention should be paid to the integration of the development with the rest of the town centre. Tesco - Partnership was impressed by the Tesco proposals, particularly in terms of the design and welcome the fact that the scheme is mixed use - Partnership keen to ensure that there are strong pedestrian links with the town centre to ensure linked shopping trips and to receive assurances that the artist’s impressions as presented be honoured in a detailed planning application Asda - The Wolsey Road site is in need of regeneration as the area is currently a poor gateway to the town centre - Concerns regarding the proposed new highways layout which now appears to be highly detrimental to the look and feel of Memorial Square Summary - Partnership is supportive of the Belvoir Centre proposals as the ones likely to bring the most benefit to Coalville businesses and users providing the concerns can be satisfactorily addressed - Partnership is also very supportive of the Tesco plans, which it hopes could act as a catalyst for further development within the town centre should the Belvoir Centre scheme not be approved - Despite strong partnership support for the Asda brand and retail offer it is felt that the single use nature of the site and poor pedestrian linkages are unlikely to bring benefits to the wider town centre - Whatever the decision taken by the Planning Committee, the Partnership will work closely with the successful applicant(s) to continue to improve the town centre for the benefit of businesses, residents and visitors alike. OPUN (East Midlands Design Review Panel) commented in respect of the previously amended scheme that it showed very welcome improvement in many of the key areas identified by the



54

original Design Review Panel. It considered that the design team, having set out to create a building with a strong contemporary urban image at this location, had worked within the confines of a building typology generally associated with out of town developments to achieve this. Following the reconfiguration of the scheme in terms of Memorial Square, however, OPUN considers that the layout would be overly complex and would not create a hospitable environment for pedestrians. In particular it considers that: - The scheme fails to provide a positive design response to the existing surroundings, in particular to the square surrounding the War Memorial Clock Tower - The first Design and Access Statement submitted by the applicants considered that, currently, the area has suffered from the lack of quality pedestrian space in the surrounding of the tower - the proposal of locating the tower in a traffic island is not an appropriate solution to reinforce the importance of this landmark building of the town - The scheme fails to consider the highway design in conjunction with the public realm design - the highway design of the scheme is excessive for the amount of traffic designed for, and the over-engineered proposal is confusing and potentially dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles - The landscape proposal is a simple colouring up exercise for the leftover areas from the highways, and there is no evidence of a holistic approach on the public realm design. No design priorities are given to the place making and pedestrian movement principles. The amount of highway surfacing and vehicle turning lanes introduced would significantly harm the urban fabric and, therefore, would not be acceptable. OPUN goes on to suggest alternative highways solutions to attempt to overcome these concerns; these options are, however, understood to not be considered viable proposals by the County Highway Authority. The Royal British Legion has no objections County Highway Authority has no objections to the amended scheme (in isolation), subject to conditions and Section 106 contributions National Forest Company objected to the scheme as originally submitted on the basis of its design, the lack of sustainable development measures and its limited landscaping / National Forest planting [no comments have been received further to the amendment of the proposals]. Natural England objected to the application as submitted on the basis of the lack of provision of adequate information to demonstrate the potential impact on protected species (and, in particular, great crested newts, reptiles, bats and breeding birds). No further comments have been received following the submission of supplementary information to address this concern. Severn Trent Water has no objections subject to conditions South Derbyshire District Council has no objections County Archaeologist has no objections County Education Authority advises that no education contribution will be required County Head of Commercial and Support Services advises that no contribution will be required County Heritage Services recommends the use of bat bricks / boxes be incorporated into the design of the buildings, and that green corridors be established



55

County Waste Management advises that no civic amenity contribution will be required Charnwood Borough Council has no objections Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council has no objections Environment Agency has no objections subject to conditions East Midlands Regional Assembly has no comments East Midlands Development Agency has no comments Environmental Services Manager has no objections subject to conditions Police Crime Reduction Officer has no objections subject to Section 106 contributions Central Networks has no objections Head of Street Management advises that it is unlikely that the District Council would sell the existing public convenience site unless alternative provision is made (for example by permitting public use of in-store toilets, to be secured by way of a condition) Network Rail has no observations 5. Relevant Planning Policy Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 6 – Planning for Town Centres The application site (excluding those parts of the overall site related to highways works at Memorial Square) is located approximately 150 metres from the town centre boundary, and, under the definitions within Annex A to PPS 6, would appear to be "edge-of-centre". Paragraph 3.1 of PPS 6 provides that "To deliver the Government's objective of promoting vital and viable town centres, development should be focussed in existing centres in order to strengthen and, where appropriate, regenerate them." In terms of assessing proposed developments, the following paragraphs within Chapter 3 provide as follows: "3.4 In the context of development control and subject to the policies set out below, local planning authorities should require applicants to demonstrate: a) the need for development.... b) that the development is of an appropriate scale.... c) that there are no more central sites for the development.... d) that there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres....and e) that locations are accessible...." In terms of the factors listed above, the following passages are considered of note: a) Need "3.9 Need must be demonstrated for any application for a main town centre use which would be in an edge-of-centre or out-of-centre location and which is not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan document strategy." Need must be assessed quantitatively and qualitatively."



56

b) Scale "3.12 An indicative upper limit for the scale of a development (usually defined in terms of gross floorspace) which is likely to be acceptable in particular centres for different facilities may be set out in development plan documents. Where this is not the case, or where a development plan document is out-of-date, the factors to be considered in determining the appropriate scale of development in a centre are those set out in paragraphs 2.41-2.43" (i.e. the scale of development should relate to the role and function of the centre within the wider hierarchy and the catchment served and, where a need has been identified, local planning authorities should seek to identify sites in the centre, or failing that on the edge of the centre, capable of accommodating larger format developments). c) Site Selection "3.13 The sequential approach to site selection should be applied to all development proposals for sites that are not in an existing centre nor allocated in an up-to-date development plan document....The relevant centres in which to search for sites will depend on the overall strategy set out in the development plan, the nature and scale of the development and the catchment that the development seeks to serve." "3.14 In selecting sites, all options in the centre should be thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered..." "3.15 In applying the sequential approach, and considering alternative sites, developers and operators should be able to demonstrate that in seeking to find a site in or on the edge of existing centres they have been flexible about their proposed business model in terms of the following planning considerations: - the scale of their development; - the format of their development; - car parking provision; and - the scope for disaggregation...." “3.19 Where it is argued that otherwise sequentially-preferable sites are not appropriate for the particular development proposed, applicants should provide clear evidence to demonstrate why such sites are not practicable alternatives in terms of: - Availability: the sites are unavailable now and are unlikely to become available for development within a reasonable period of time (determined on the merits of a particular case). Where such sites become available unexpectedly after receipt of the application the local planning authority should take this into account in their assessment of the application; and - Suitability: with due regard to the requirements to demonstrate flexibility…..the sites are not suitable for the type of development proposed; and - Viability: the development would not be viable on these sites.” d) Assessing Impact "3.20 Impact assessments should be undertaken for any application for a main town centre use which would be in an edge-of-centre or out-of-centre location and which is not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan strategy...." "3.21 In assessing sites, local planning authorities should consider the impact of the proposal on the vitality and viability of existing centres within the catchment area of the proposed development, including the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments. The identification of need does not necessarily



57

indicate that there will be no negative impact." "3.22 In particular, local planning authorities should consider the impact of the development on the centre or centres likely to be affected, taking account of: - the extent to which the development would put at risk the spatial planning strategy for the area and the strategy for a particular centre or network of centres, or alter its role in the hierarchy of centres; - the likely effect on future public or private sector investment needed to safeguard the vitality and viability of the centre or centres; - the likely impact of the proposed development on trade/turnover and on the vitality and viability of existing centres within the catchment area of the proposed development and, where applicable, on the rural economy (an example of a positive impact might be if development results in clawback expenditure from the surrounding area); - changes to the range of services provided by centres that could be affected; - likely impact on the number of vacant properties in the primary shopping area; - potential changes to the quality, attractiveness, physical condition and character of the centre or centres and to its role in the economic and social life of the community; and - the implications of proposed leisure and entertainment uses for the evening and nighttime economy of the centre…." e) Ensuring Locations are Accessible "3.24 In considering proposed new developments, local planning authorities should consider: i) The need for accessibility by a choice of means of transport 3.25 Developments should be accessible by a choice of means of transport, including public transport, walking, cycling, and the car (taking full account of customers' likely travel patterns). In determining whether developments are or will become genuinely accessible, local authorities should assess the distance of proposed developments from existing or proposed public transport facilities (bus or railway stations and interchanges). Account should also be taken of the frequency and capacity of services, and whether access is easy, safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people. Distances should be measured as actual walking distance rather than as a straight line. 3.26 Local planning authorities should assess the extent to which retail, leisure and office developers have tailored their approach to meet the Government's objectives as set out in....PPG13. For example through the preparation of accessibility analyses, transport assessments, travel plans and the promotion of opportunities to reduce car journeys through home delivery services, and contributions to improve access, traffic management and parking. ii) The impact on car use, traffic and congestion 3.27 In assessing new developments, local planning authorities should consider: - whether the proposal would have an impact on the overall distance travelled by car; and - the effect on local traffic levels and congestion, after public transport and traffic management measures have been secured." Draft PPS 4 Draft PPS 4 would replace existing PPS 6. The general thrust of Draft PPS 4 is that it reinforces the town centre first approach through the retention of the sequential test. The existing need / impact test are replaced by a more extensive list to assess the positive and negative impact of proposals including cumulative effects (Policy EC20)



58

The starting point for consideration of Planning applications for development for town centre uses not in a centre nor allocated in an up to date development plan is Policy EC21 which states that- Having considered the evidence, local authorities should determine planning applications for town centre uses that are not in a centre or allocated in an up to date development plan in the following way: 1. Refuse planning permission where the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of Policy EC19 (the sequential approach) 2. Refuse planning permission where there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts in terms of mitigation of or adaption to climate change or any one or more other key impacts under Policy EC20.1 (3) (the impact assessment) 3. Consider proposals favourably where any adverse impacts under Policy EC20.1(3) are not significant and these are likely to be outweighed by significant wider economic, social and environmental benefits arising form the proposal under Policy EC20.1(4) or other material considerations Policy EC18 requires that for planning applications for main town centre uses which are not in an existing centre not allocated in an up to date development plan the following evidence is required- 1. A sequential assessment 2. An impact assessment These replace the five PPS6 tests, with the need test the most significant deletion in terms of the current proposal. Policy EC19 points out that in considering sequential assessments Local planning authorities should ensure that- 1. In centre options have been thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered 2. Where it has been demonstrated that there are no town centre sites to accommodate a proposed development preference is given to edge of centre locations which are well connected to the centre by means of easy pedestrian access. 3. In considering sites in or on the edge of existing centres developers and operators have demonstrated flexibility about the proposed business model in terms of; a) scale b) format c) car parking provision d) the scope for disaggregation 4. In considering whether flexibility has been demonstrated under (3) take into account genuine difficulties which are likely to occur in operating the proposed business model from the sequentially preferable site. However evidence which claims that a class of goods cannot be sold form town centres should not be accepted. 5. In considering sites in or on the edge of existing centres developers have explored whether specific parts of a development could be operated from separate, sequentially preferable sites (e.g. in retail / leisure parks) 6. Applicants have provided clear evidence to demonstrate why otherwise sequentially preferable sites are not appropriate for the particular development proposed, taking account of a



59

site’s availability, suitability and viability. In applying this policy, local planning authorities should be realistic in considering whether sites are suitable, viable and available. Policy EC20 deals with impact and local authorities should- 1. Consider whether the assessment sets out clear conclusions on all town centre and wider impacts. Assessments should focus in particular on the first five years after the implementation of the proposal. 2. Consider any positive and negative impacts of the proposal, taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed schemes. 3. Assess the proposal against the following key impacts: a) Limit CO2 emissions over the lifetime of the development b) If in an edge of centre location, the impact on the spatial planning strategy, particularly the role of the centre in the hierarchy of centres. c) What the impact is on investment in the centres or catchment area d) Whether it is an appropriate scale e) The accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport and the extent to which it will reduce or increase the overall distance travelled by car and resultant effect on CO2 emissions, the effect on local traffic levels and congestion and its contribution to linked trips. f) For retail and leisure schemes, impact on in centre trade/ turnover and trade in the wider area taking account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years from the time the application is made. g) What the impact is on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of retail offer. h) Whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design. Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 13 – Transport PPG 13 contains similar advice to that set out in PPS 6 regarding the need to promote existing centres as the preferred location for new development. Preference should be given to town centre sites, followed by edge of centre locations. PPG 13 also sets out the Government's policies for managing demand for travel, and suggests that a Travel Plan is appropriate for retail development in excess of 1,000 square metres gross floorspace. East Midlands Regional Plan - RSS 8 (2009) Policy 2 seeks to improve continuously the layout, design and construction of new development. Policy 3 sets out a sequential approach for the distribution of development and economic activity. The policy also advises that priority should be given to making best use of previously developed land and vacant/underused buildings in urban or other sustainable areas. Policy 22 sets out the Regional Priorities for Town Centres and Retail Development. In particular it requires that, where town centres are under-performing, action should be taken to promote investment through design led initiatives and the development and implementation of town centre strategies. Policy 48 states that Local Planning Authorities should apply the maximum amounts of vehicle parking for new development as set out in PPG13. Parking in excess of these standards should only be provided in exceptional circumstances.



60

Policy 49 seeks to promote improvements in public transport accessibility. Policy Three Cities SRS 5 seeks to promote the development of the National Forest in ways that generate environmental, economic and social benefits of both local and national significance. North West Leicestershire Local Plan (2002) The site is within Limits to Development as defined in the Local Plan. The majority of the site (only excluding a relatively small area to the north-western part of the site) is also within an area subject to Policy R15 which provides that the following uses will be permitted within the Town Centre Services Area fronting onto Wolsey Road, Coalville: (a) Business use (Class B1); (b) Retail uses falling outside the definition of “shop” (Class A1); and (c) Assembly and leisure uses (Class D2) Policy R1 provides that shopping and related development (such as financial and professional services and food and drink uses) will be permitted within Coalville and Ashby de la Zouch Town Centres, on allocated sites, and in existing or proposed local shopping areas. New retail development outside these areas will only be permitted where it can be shown that a number of criteria would be satisfied. Policy S2 of the Local Plan provides that development will be permitted on allocated sites and other land within the Limits to Development, identified on the Proposals Map, where it complies with the policies of the Local Plan. Policy E3 seeks to prevent development which would be significantly detrimental to the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of nearby dwellings. Policy E4 seeks to achieve good design in new development. Policy T3 requires development to make adequate provision for vehicular access, circulation and servicing arrangements. Policy T8 requires that parking provision in new developments be kept to the necessary minimum, having regard to a number of criteria. Policy T13 requires adequate provision for cycle parking. Other Policy Documents The Coalville Town Centre Vision was produced by BDP / Donaldsons on behalf of the District Council in January 2007, and sets out options for the way in which the town centre could be improved over future years. The Vision identified various redevelopment opportunities including the site the subject of this application. In respect of the application site, the Vision envisaged “large format food retail units with complementary retail, leisure and residential” development. It provided that “The Wolsey Road development is intended to act as an anchor at the northern end of the traditional north-south retail axis of Belvoir Road, encouraging pedestrians to circulate through Memorial Square. This would give Memorial Square greater importance as the identifiable heart of the town and it would be used for a variety of events organised by town centre management throughout the year to help attract visitors to Coalville….



61

Leading off Memorial Square northwards a new tapering public space would give views toward the historic Victorian Wolsey building which would be converted to retail use at ground floor with apartments in the upper two floors. Containing this vista to the east and west, new development would follow this theme of retail ground floor and residential use above, giving the new square activity during the day and use of and passive policing by its new residential community out of hours. Retail unit sizes would be aimed at larger floorspace users of 5-800 sq m. The new public space would lead to the entrance to a large new food store of around 8,000 sq m net trading area and the public space would give a direct line of sight from Memorial Square to its entrance. This food store is envisaged as having its car parking at ground floor with the retail at first floor, accessed via travellators, a model becoming common in constrained town centre sites. The travellators would be within an attractive glazed atrium spanning across to the Wolsey building. (Note, it is important that this foodstore does not widen its offer to include non-food retail as this would not complement the existing town centre offer)…. Primary vehicle access to parking and servicing would be off Market Street, with additional servicing and residents parking on Wolsey Road which would be given a pedestrian priority.” In respect of the treatment of Memorial Square, the Vision provided that “Memorial Square is currently dominated by vehicular movements resulting in the severance of north-south and east-west pedestrian links. A key principle of the Vision strategy is to rediscover Memorial Square as the heart of the town. The introduction of bus gates would remove traffic (with the exception of buses) from Belvoir Road at the junction with Ashby Road and High Street presenting the opportunity to improve pedestrian facilities….. The Vision strategy proposes the development of a large food-store and a number of smaller retail units on Market Street to the north of Memorial Square. It also proposes to reroute traffic from the western side of the Memorial to the eastern side, creating a staggered junction with High Street, Belvoir Road and Ashby Road, and creating a direct pedestrian route from Belvoir Road through Memorial Square. The potential development of a large food-store would clearly act as a significant trip generator and would have considerable impact on traffic movements around Memorial Square. A comprehensive Transport Assessment would be required to assess the impact on the junctions of Market Street with Mantle Lane and Wolsey Road and the Mantle Lane/High Street/Belvoir Road/Ashby Road junction, and the need for junction improvement works.” In March 2007 the Council resolved to incorporate the key elements of the Coalville Town Centre Vision into an Area Action Plan for the town centre. Whilst this was the original intention, this Area Action Plan does not now form part of the District Council’s amended Local Development Scheme (LDS) submitted to the Government Office for the East Midlands (GOEM) in September 2008 (although this amended LDS has not yet been formally approved by the GOEM). As such, whilst the Town Centre Vision is a material planning consideration, the weight attributed to it as a material consideration should be limited to reflect its status. 6. Assessment Principle of Development / Planning Policy Issues The majority of the site constitutes previously-developed land. The area of “scrub” to the western part of the application site forms part of a larger area formerly subject to Local Plan Policy E29 requiring the restoration of the Ashby Road tip. Regardless of the extent of its potentially previous use in association with the tip, given re-vegetation, the land now appears to have the appearance of an undeveloped site and, as such, an argument could be made that that part of the application site constitutes greenfield land. However, it is accepted that, even if this position is taken, the use of such an area of greenfield land, surrounded by, and developed



62

in conjunction with, previously-developed land, would be appropriate. It is considered that the proposals would satisfy the requirements of RSS 8 Policy 3 and Policy S2 of the Local Plan in this regard. The key issues regarding the principle of development are considered to be the site’s acceptability in retail policy terms (and, in particular, PPS 6) and the site’s designation under Local Plan Policy R15, as detailed below. Retail Policy Issues The application has been supported by a Planning and Retail Statement setting out, amongst others, the case for the proposed development in terms of retail issues; the District Council has sought consultants' advice on the need for a development of this type and the merits of the application, having regard to the relevant retail policy. Members are advised that the retail advice on both this application and the Parkridge application (also reported on this Agenda) has been provided by the Manchester office of Roger Tym and Partners. In addition, the Leicester office of Roger Tym and Partners is acting as agent in respect of the recently submitted application for the Belvoir Centre / car park site. The advice to the Council on the two retail applications is from the Manchester Office of Roger Tym and Partners. The Leicester office of Roger Tym and Partners subsequently accepted instructions from the owners of the Belvoir Centre. Concerns have been raised by the applicants that the Council has relied on advice from Roger Tym and Partners who, by acting for different parties, has a conflict of interest and, by relying on such advice, the decision of the Council could arguably be seen to be seen to be biased and unfair. The Manchester office of Roger Tym and Partners has confirmed that the usual professional conflict checks are carried out before accepting instructions, and the usual "chinese walls" are in place; their advice to the Council is based on their own independent professional judgement, and on the evidence available. They are satisfied that, professionally, no conflict of interest arises with the Instructions of the Leicester office, and they advise that the Manchester Office has no financial incentive to achieve a particular outcome. The Council's legal advisors confirm that they are satisfied that, based on the above, it would not be inappropriate to rely on the advice of Roger Tym and Partners. Notwithstanding this view, however, the Local Planning Authority has commissioned further advice from different planning consultants (Barton Willmore), who confirm that the advice given by Roger Tym and Partners is, in their view, sound. Unless otherwise stated, therefore, subsequent references to the Council’s consultants refer to the Manchester office of Roger Tym and Partners. This part of the report considers the merits of the application in retail policy terms, taking into account supporting information submitted on behalf of the application, and the assessment of the proposals by the authority's consultants. It is contended by the applicants that the site is “edge of centre” for the purposes of consideration in the context of PPS 6; this assertion is accepted. The individual elements of the application’s performance against the relevant policy are set out below: Need Before considering the merits of the proposals, an assessment of the need (or otherwise) for such a development is required, given the edge of centre location of the site.



63

In terms of qualitative need for a new foodstore in the town, the Council’s consultants note that the submitted Planning and Retail Statement refers to recent store closures and the dominant position of the existing Morrisons store on Whitwick Road. In particular, the applicants consider that the current convenience retail offer in Coalville Town Centre lacks a quality anchor retailer with provision either being of too small a scale to provide maximum choice, or deep discount stores which are unable to fulfil the requirements of a weekly shop. The Planning and Retail Statement argues that the addition of an Asda store would create more competition for the local convenience offer, and would attract greater pedestrian flows into the town centre via linked trips. It states that the comparison element of the store would be modest in size and would complement the existing comparison retail found in the main shopping core of the town centre. Insofar as quantitative need is concerned, the Planning and Retail Statement assesses the scheme using a specific catchment for Coalville, having regard to current expenditure / turnover and the equivalent anticipated figures in 2013. In summary, on the basis of the assumptions in the Planning and Retail Statement, there is anticipated to be a “surplus” of £51.2m of convenience goods expenditure in the catchment in 2013, of which the application scheme would require £49.0m. As such it is concluded that there is (just) sufficient expenditure capacity to support the new store in 2013. However, the Council’s consultants also draw attention to the assertion in the Planning and Retail Statement that around 85 – 90% of the store’s turnover would be derived from within the catchment area, (and, thus, that 10-15% would be drawn from elsewhere). On this basis, the amount of trade the store actually drawn from the catchment would be some 10 to15% less than the £51.2m total turnover, thus increasing the capacity “headroom”. In 2007 the Council’s consultants undertook a Retail Capacity Study Update on behalf of the Local Planning Authority, which forecast that convenience expenditure capacity to support new floorspace would be £12.3m by 2016 (i.e. considerably below that of the applicants’ forecasts). The Council’s consultants consider that the differences are likely to arise through two main factors – firstly, the applicants adopting a catchment area that centres on Coalville but includes large areas outside the District of North West Leicestershire, and secondly, the applicants assume that 100% of convenience goods expenditure generated from within this area is available to support foodstore floorspace within the area, rather than allowing for elements of “leakage” to other centres and freestanding foodstores outside the catchment. In this regard, the Council’s consultants consider the applicants’ Planning and Retail Statement as overstating the true extent of expenditure capacity. Nevertheless, having regard to (i) the applicants’ updated household survey based on drive times from Coalville town centre itself (which is more up-to-date than the Council’s consultants’ previous work which relied on data from 2004), (ii) the qualitative arguments to support provision of one new major foodstore in the town (given that “main” supermarket provision is limited to the existing Co-op and Morrisons stores), and (iii) the evidence provided indicating over-trading at the Morrisons store, Council’s consultants accept that there is some need for new superstore provision in the town, with some qualitative benefits available to offset quantitative capacity shortfalls that may exist. Overall, therefore, it is accepted that there is a need for a new store (particularly given the qualitative need issue). Scale of the Proposed Development In terms of scale, having regard to their findings in respect of need, and the scale of the store proposed, the Council’s consultants consider that the proposed store is not of inappropriate scale for a centre of Coalville’s status in the retail hierarchy. At the time the advice was provided, the Council’s consultants noted that the centre was classified as a “sub-regional



64

centre” in the then RSS8 (which was superseded by the current version in March 2009). The town is still classified as such in the revised RSS 8. Sequential Approach PPS 6 makes clear in paragraph 3.14 that the sequential approach to site selection should be applied to all development proposals for sites that are not in an existing centre and that “all options in the centre should be thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered”. Given that the application site is in an edge of centre location, the key issue to consider is whether there are any available, suitable and viable sites in the town centre (or sites which are otherwise sequentially preferable) which could, within a reasonable period of time, accommodate the development proposed. Prior to identifying alternative sites, the submitted Planning and Retail Statement identifies “core” requirements for a proposed store, including an accessible location for customers and deliveries, an adequate number of car parking spaces (approximately 400 minimum), and around 8,000 square metres gross floor area for retailing and storage. In order to accommodate these core facilities in a commercially viable and high quality manner, the Planning and Retail Statement indicates that the minimum site area required for the facility would be approximately 2.5 hectares. It also advises that “Any disaggregation of the scheme would have to be done on a realistic basis taking into account the specific operational requirements of a foodstore and Asda’s business model”. Having regard to these requirements, the applicants have investigated two alternative sites, namely the site of the public car park located to the east of the Belvoir Centre, and the Ford car dealership site at the junction of Hotel Street and Whitwick Road. Both of these sites are sequentially preferable to the Asda application site, by virtue of the following: (i) The car park site is located within the town centre (it is identified as falling within the Core Town Centre Shopping Area in the adopted North West Leicestershire Local Plan) (ii) The Ford garage is, as per the Asda site, edge of centre; however, this site is subject to Policies R8 and R11 of the Local Plan. Policy R8 provides that redevelopment for shopping and related purposes will be permitted on identified land to the North side of Hotel Street. Policy R11 (which relates to the outer part of the Town centre Shopping Areas) presumes in favour of, amongst others, Class A1 use on ground floor frontages. In terms of these sites, the Planning and Retail Statement considers that they are not appropriate alternatives for the following reasons: (i) Car Park site: - Although large enough to accommodate the proposed development, the irregular shape of the site is unsuitable for a large store; - Incompatible with the District Council’s Town Centre Vision (development of the site is envisaged in that document as a series of smaller retail units and pedestrian routes) - The development would not be viable because of the redevelopment and reconfiguration costs; and - The site is not available as it is owned by the Council, and thus could only come forward as a public sector project. In addition, the applicants make the following points in support of their assertion that the car park site is not an appropriate alternative: - It is speculation as to whether any proposals will emerge, and over what timescale they could be implemented - Town Centre Vision dismisses the car park site as a suitable option for food retailing



65

- Would require the Belvoir Centre to be substantially redeveloped, including loss of existing floorspace and relocation of / disruption to existing businesses - There would be adverse impacts upon the town centre during such redevelopment - In the long term, the retail function of the town centre would be undermined due to loss of comparison retail floorspace - It is questionable whether such a scheme would come forward given existing market conditions - Whilst concern is raised by the Council’s retail consultants in respect of the impact of the Asda scheme on the redevelopment potential of the Belvoir Centre / car park site, this assertion is based on the assumption that such a redevelopment ought to be anchored by a superstore, which would not be in the best interests of the town centre, nor is what the Town Centre Vision advocates (ii) Ford Garage site: - The site is not large enough to accommodate the proposed Asda store, even allowing for a reasonable degree of disaggregation and flexibility; - The site is divorced from the town centre by the route of the railway line; - The site is being promoted in the Town Centre Vision as being suitable for a residential-led mixed-use scheme; as a result, the site would be too expensive for a food retail only scheme; and - The applicants understand that the owner has already signed a preliminary land agreement with another retailer and thus the site is not “available” to Asda. In addition, the applicants make the following points in support of their assertion that the Ford Garage site (and, in particular, the submitted Parkridge scheme for that site) is not an appropriate alternative: - It is not suitable for development incorporating a large food store; - Whilst apparently available in site ownership terms, it is not available in planning terms because the site cannot accommodate the scale of development being applied for; - The site is not more preferable to Asda’s application site, as both are approximately 150m from the core shopping area of the town centre - when measured from the area of highest footfall in the town centre, Asda’s application site is closer The above paragraphs represent the applicants’ assessment of the two alternative sites. Insofar as the Council’s consultants and officers are concerned, the following conclusions are reached: Car Park Site By virtue of its identification in the North West Leicestershire Local Plan as being within the Core Town Centre Shopping Area, the town centre car park site is the most sequentially preferable of the various sites referred to. At the time the application was originally reported to the Planning Committee (7 April 2009), it was reported that the owners of the Belvoir Centre had undertaken a public consultation in respect of proposals to extend the centre eastwards into the car park. It was also reported verbally to the Committee meeting that, on that day (i.e. 7 April 2009), an application submission had been made to the Local Planning Authority. Whilst that submission was considered to be invalid by the District Council having regard to the National and Local Requirements for submission of applications, further information was subsequently submitted, and the application was validated on 10 June 2009 (ref. 09/00359/FULM). That application will need to be brought to the Planning Committee at a future date for a decision.



66

The Belvoir Centre scheme includes the following: - Demolition of the existing Co-Op / Iceland store plus other existing units to the eastern end of the Belvoir Centre - Formation of a new pedestrian walkway eastwards from the existing centre - Formation of a new square / open space with a pedestrian link through to Belvoir Road - 22 new retail units ranging between 94 and 8,098 square metres in floorspace (the largest unit being a food store) - Hotel - Cinema - A new vehicular access via Phoenix Green with a new road bridge crossing the existing railway - A three storey car park to the eastern end of the car park site Whilst the applicants draw attention to the potential for the site to provide for smaller units, and whilst the Local Planning Authority is still consulting on the Belvoir Centre scheme, on the basis of the type of scheme indicated in the Belvoir Centre application, it would seem at this stage that a food store of a scale commensurate to that for which a need has been identified could in principle be provided on the site. Whilst the Town Centre Vision advises in paragraph 7.12 that “the Town Centre Car park site is not an option for this kind of development” (i.e. food retail), the submitted application would seem to indicate that the site may in fact be capable of providing such a facility (and, furthermore, the status of the Town Centre Vision document should, it is considered, limit the weight attached to it to a significant degree). The issue therefore is whether that site is deliverable within a reasonable time period (see Paragraph 3.19 of PPS 6). In this case it is considered reasonable to apply the five year period that PPS 6 suggests using in respect of identifying quantitative need. At the time the draft masterplan for the Belvoir Centre was prepared, the developers in respect of that site advised that, were planning permission granted, the following timetable for implementation of their scheme would be likely: Submission of planning application: March / April 2009 Planning permission approval: July 2009 Construction commencement: August 2009 Completion: July / August 2011 Were this scheme, as anticipated in the draft masterplan document, to be fully implementable by summer 2011, it would clearly be well within the five year period. However, it will be noted that the timescales anticipated have already “slipped”, which would suggest that the completion date of summer 2011 may no longer be achieved. The developers in respect of the Belvoir Centre scheme have been asked for a revised timetable. At this stage, no further information has been forthcoming; if any further comments are received in terms of this issue, they will be reported on the Update Sheet. The relevant PPS 6 test in terms of the assessing the availability of sequentially preferable sites is that, in dismissing such sites, it needs to be shown that they are unavailable now, and are unlikely to become available within a reasonable period of time (determined on the merits of a particular case). As set out above, officers are of the view that the appropriate timescale to assess the deliverability of the town centre site is five years, although it is noted that, in its report on its Enquiry by Design (set out in more detail under design issues below), the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment stresses that urgent and long overdue action is needed to



67

improve substantially Coalville’s retail offer. There is clear logic in having a correlation between the five year time period for which the “need” for new retail development has to be met, and the sequential appraisal of potential sites over the same period of time to meet this need. In addition, the current adverse economic conditions are such that three years is considered an overly short period within which to demonstrate the availability and viability of the sequentially preferable site. For this reason it would be possible that the town centre site which, due to its town centre location, is considered to be best placed to secure the regeneration of Coalville, is dismissed if an unreasonably short time period is applied in assessing whether it is deliverable. Notwithstanding the views of the applicants for the Belvoir Centre scheme in terms of timescales, the advice of the District Council’s Property Services department has been sought to help establish whether those timescales are realistic. In particular, there appear to be a number of issues that could impact on the likelihood of such a scheme being delivered by summer 2011 or, indeed, within five years, including the need to reach agreements with various parties with interests in the land (including the District Council, Leicestershire County Council, the Co-Op and Sustrans) and the potential difficulties posed by the need to provide a new road bridge across the railway which would presumably necessitate the agreement of Network Rail. To this end, Property Services considers that there are a number of “unknowns” affecting such a scheme, which make it difficult to say with certainty that the scheme could be completed within five years. Property Services advises that land ownership issues have not been resolved (and there is little evidence of active steps to acquire the land, including approaching other landowners), the commitment of the funding partners is not evidenced and little detailed development work has been undertaken. At this point in time, Property Services considers that the scheme is “speculative” on the basis of the information available so far, and that considerably more evidence would be required before they could state with any certainty that delivery would be expected within five years. In view of this, it is accepted that it is difficult to say with certainty that the car park site would come forward within five years although, having regard to the work currently being undertaken, the Council’s consultants consider that the potential redevelopment of the site within the near future is a clear possibility. Whilst limited progress appears to have been made thus far, it not is considered that this should necessarily rule out the possibility that the site would come forward, and to reach such a conclusion, particularly given the timescales set out by that site’s promoters, would be premature. At the time of preparing this report, limited responses had been received in respect of the Belvoir Centre application given its relatively early stage in the determination process. As such, it is difficult to say with any certainty whether the scheme proposed is feasible and, moreover, deliverable within a reasonable period of time. However, the key issue here is not whether or not there is an alternative scheme which is available, suitable or viable, but whether there is such a site. In this regard, it was reported to the April 2009 Planning Committee meeting on the late papers Update Sheet that further comments had been received from the District Council’s Head of Property, advising that he had met with representatives of the developers in order to develop a better understanding of the Belvoir Centre scheme and the funding that lies behind it. He advised at that time that a scheme could be delivered on that site with a land assembly package comprising parcels that are currently in the ownership of La Salle, the District Council and Leicestershire County Council. He also advised that the developers had provided information and background detail that opens up the potential for a sale of District Council land to La Salle as a Special Purchaser. Whilst he commented that this was not to say that it would happen, the advice given was that it was a clear possibility. This would not be the scheme as proposed in the submitted planning application, but the land assembly would allow the supermarket, new retail units and associated car parking to proceed. He did, however, reiterate his views on the larger scheme for the site which, in his opinion, was less certain as he could foresee land assembly issues causing delay. He therefore advised at that time that he could be



68

less certain about delivery within five years on the “full” scheme but, it could nevertheless be achieved. Also, the District Council has now engaged Barton Willmore to provide additional advice on the likely deliverability of a scheme on the Belvoir Centre / car park site (including that for which planning permission has now been applied). Their advice can be summarised as follows: Availability: - Whilst the Belvoir Centre / car park site is in multiple ownership, this in itself does not limit the availability of a site, particularly given that multiple site ownership is a common feature of many town centre redevelopment sites - Notwithstanding concerns that Network Rail holds a ransom strip of land which could restrict a new access road being built over the rail line, it is understood that a development agreement could be put in place within a nine to twelve month period and, whilst Network Rail would seek to maximise the value of their site, they are not aware of any intention to withhold this site. - If land assembly proved to be an issue in respect of the Belvoir Centre / car park, the Council would have powers of CPO. Alternatively, part of the site, potentially not requiring access via a new road bridge, could be pursued - There is no evidence to suggest that the car park site (or part thereof) is not available for the proposal the subject of this application in whole or disaggregated form - As such, based on the information to hand, the car park site is likely to be available, or is capable of being made available, within a reasonable period of time Suitability: - The Belvoir Centre / car park site is located within the Core Town Centre Shopping Area, and immediately adjoins the existing shopping centre - redevelopment of the car park for retailing is therefore considered to be suitable in principle Viability: - Insufficient information has been submitted in support of the proposal the subject of this application to demonstrate that the development of the Belvoir Centre / car park site as a foodstore would not be viable - The current Belvoir Centre proposals would appear to be viable. Even if they were not, however, it is not the case that an alternative scheme (e.g. comprising solely a foodstore on part of the site) would not be viable Overall in respect of the town centre car park site, therefore, it is at this stage concluded that, on balance, the site would seem capable of accommodating a scheme of some description (whether or not the scheme proposed under application ref. 09/00359/FULM), and would be sequentially preferable to the Asda proposals. Whilst there are some doubts as to the deliverability of such a scheme within a reasonable period of time, it is not possible to conclude with any certainty that the site could not provide a viable alternative to the current Asda proposals within five years. As such, it is considered that the car park site represents a sequentially preferable site which the applicants have failed to demonstrate is not available, suitable or viable. Ford Garage site As set out above, and notwithstanding the applicants’ arguments in respect of distance from the retail core, the Ford Garage site is also considered to be sequentially preferable to the application site given the particular policies applicable to that site (although the applicants do not accept this position). An application for outline planning permission for redevelopment of the site for a mix of uses including A1 food store, other A1 to A5 retail space and residential



69

apartments has been submitted to the District Council for this site (ref. 08/00917/OUTM). In terms of the applicants’ assertions regarding distance from the Core Town Centre shopping area, and whilst direct comparison is difficult given the outline nature of the current application on the Ford Garage site, the nearest units on that site would be between 50 and 150 metres (approx.) away from the edge of the Core area. The equivalent distances in respect of the Asda proposals are considered in more detail under the section relating to impact below. In respect of the applicants’ discounting of this site, the Council’s retail consultants express reservations in relation to the applicants’ analysis of the sequential approach. In particular, they do not accept that in current market conditions the possible use of the site for residential development would result in a site value so high as to preclude food store use. Nor, they advise, is the fact that the site may be under the control of another food retailer of direct relevance. They also do not accept that the site is necessarily too small to accommodate a large food store. Since the applications were first considered by the Planning Committee in April 2009, the agents in respect of the Ford Garage site have provided additional supporting information in respect of the deliverability of their proposals. They advise that, were the Parkridge proposals to be supported, the following timetable would apply: August 2009: Section 106 agreement signed and planning permission issued August 2009 to late October 2009: Detailed design and submission to the District Council August 2009 to July 2010 (“or sooner depending on relocation”): Conclude site purchase and assist business relocation where applicable January 2010 to March 2010: Detailed approval(s) August 2010: Commencement of demolition and other enabling works September 2010: Commencement of main construction works September 2011: Completion In terms of the deliverability of a scheme on the Ford Garage site, the agents for that scheme are of the view that (i) all the necessary land has either been assembled or negotiations are in an advanced stage; (ii) a high quality, viable scheme has been designed which meets the aspirations of the market; (iii) Tesco have committed to the scheme which will ensure its commercial viability and success; and (iv) there are no physical, access or other constraints to development which may constrain deliverability. On the basis of the information currently available to officers (and including the Authority’s own investigations in respect of deliverability) there would seem to be no overriding reason to conclude that the Parkridge scheme would not be deliverable. Overall in respect of the Ford Garage site, therefore, it is concluded that the site would seem capable of accommodating a scheme (as evidenced by the current application), and would also be sequentially preferable to the Asda proposals. Whilst the Parkridge application is in outline form, it is not considered that this is sufficient evidence to indicate that the site is unlikely to come forward within five years. As per the conclusions reached in respect of the town centre car park site, therefore, it is considered that the Ford Garage site represents a sequentially preferable alternative which the applicants have failed to demonstrate is not available, suitable or viable. On this basis, it is considered that the proposed Asda scheme would not meet the tests in PPS 6 having regard to the sequential approach, and refusal on this issue is therefore recommended.



70

Impact on Existing Centres On the basis of the submitted Planning and Retail Statement and supplementary information subsequently provided by the applicants, the Council’s consultants advise that the scheme will have an impact of some 33.5% on existing convenience retailers within Coalville, and that the impact on the turnover of the town centre as a whole would be just over 5%. Whilst it is accepted that the majority of the convenience turnover of the proposal would be derived from large food stores (primarily the existing Morrisons store, given the extent of the impact), the Council’s consultants express concerns in relation to the effect of the proposed scheme on Coalville town centre, as the impact of 33.5% is relatively high. Whereas the Council’s consultants acknowledge that a well-located store can offset these concerns by providing “spin-off” trade to existing retailers, they are of the view that the application site is not especially well located in this respect, being some distance from the core shopping area, and separated from it by a main road. In this area, the boundary of the Core Town Centre Shopping Area as defined in the North West Leicestershire Local Plan follows the carriageway edge of High Street / Ashby Road such that the pavement outside, for example, the Snibstone New Inn and the former Pick and Shovel public houses forms the northerly extent of the Core area. From the closest point within the Core area, the proposed store entrance would be approximately 150 metres walking distance away. This would be the distance from the edge of the Core area; to reach a more “central” part of the Core area such as, for example, the entrance to the Belvoir Centre, this would be a further 100 metres away (approx.). As set out in “Design and Impact on Amenity” below, the District Council’s Urban Designer has worked with the applicants to seek to enhance the attractiveness of the proposed pedestrian route between the store and town centre, so as to encourage linked trips as far as possible. Whilst, it is considered, that this would have the effect of increasing pedestrian flow between the proposed store and the town centre, it is nevertheless considered likely that a significant number of (car-borne) trips to the store would not also result in linked trips to the town centre, and that the “spin-off” impacts would not be of sufficient size to off-set the harm to town centre trade. In addition to the above, consideration should also be given to the implications of approving the Asda proposals on the likelihood of the Belvoir Centre redevelopment taking place. In particular, there would appear to be the possibility that approval of a large foodstore on a site elsewhere from the car park site could prejudice future redevelopment potential of the site, and the Belvoir Centre in general. Were a planning application to be submitted for a foodstore on the car park site, given the site’s Core location, it would not be necessary for the applicants to demonstrate need under PPS 6. As such, there would appear unlikely to be any planning policy impediment to the Belvoir Centre / car park scheme taking place regardless of the outcome of the current application (although the effect in such circumstances could be the possibility that total foodstore provision could exceed the level of need identified). Whilst approval of the Asda scheme would be unlikely to result in any justification to refuse any subsequent application for planning permission on the Belvoir Centre / car park site, it will be noted from the objections lodged on behalf of the operators of the Belvoir Centre that they consider that the practical effect of approving an alternative foodstore scheme would be to preclude the redevelopment coming forward, with its associated regeneration benefits to the town. This concern is shared by the Council’s consultants, who draw attention to the advice in paragraph 3.22 of PPS 6. This section (relating to assessing impact) advises that "In particular, local planning authorities should consider the impact of the development on the centre or centres likely to be affected, taking account of:



71

- the extent to which the development would put at risk the spatial planning strategy for the area and the strategy for a particular centre or network of centres, or alter its role in the hierarchy of centres; - the likely effect on future public or private sector investment needed to safeguard the vitality and viability of the centre or centres…." As set out above, the currently proposed Belvoir Centre / car park scheme includes a new 8,098 square metre food store, and, as such, it would seem that inclusion of a new large scale food store would represent a significant element of the proposed redevelopment. In view of this, and having regard to the advice provided by the Council’s consultants, it is considered that the absorption of the need for a new foodstore would indeed seem likely to prejudice the potential redevelopment of the Belvoir Centre / car park site. Overall in terms of impact, therefore, it is considered that an effect on town centre trade of the magnitude anticipated, coupled with the concerns regarding the sequential approach as set out above, would be unnecessarily harmful to the vitality and viability of the existing town centre. It is also considered that, notwithstanding the potential regeneration-related benefits associated with the proposed development to the area immediately surrounding the application site, approval of the scheme could adversely affect the potential for the redevelopment of the Belvoir Centre / car park site, to the further future detriment of the town centre. In addition to the advice already provided by Roger Tym and Partners in terms of impact on the existing town centre, the District Council has sought further guidance from Barton Willmore in respect of the cumulative impact that could arise in the circumstances wherein both the Asda and Parkridge schemes were implemented. As set out in respect of the impact analysis for the Asda scheme in isolation above, an impact of 33.5% on town centre convenience goods retailers is anticipated. In this regard, Barton Willmore’s calculations take into account the likely scenario that the two proposed stores would compete with, and draw trade from, each other, as well as other existing stores. In summary, a combined impact on town centre convenience goods retailers of approximately 50% is anticipated. This, Barton Willmore advises, would represent a significant impact on existing town centre stores, and a significantly adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre as a whole. Accessibility PPS 6 notes that securing good accessibility usually means locating developments in town centres wherever possible, taking advantage of accessibility by public transport. The Council’s consultants note that the site is in an edge of centre location which is accessible by public transport, and they therefore accept that the scheme is acceptable in accessibility terms. Notwithstanding the site’s good accessibility via public transport, given the scale of the development, it is considered that a Travel Plan would be appropriate, so as to ensure maximum advantage would be taken of its location. Draft PPS 4 With regard to Draft PPS 4, the importance of the sequential assessment has been reinforced with this being the starting point in determining a planning application. However as with the existing PPS 6 there is no change from the position that appropriate town centre uses in the centre or allocated in an up to date development plan do not need to apply the sequential test. Since there is no fundamental change to the approach taken to assessing potential sequentially preferable sites in Draft PPS 4 to that in PPS 6 in terms of their availability, suitability and



72

viability, it is not considered that the draft PPS 4 would give rise to a different recommendation in relation to the Asda scheme in that, if the town centre site is available, suitable and viable, then both edge of centre sites (i.e. Asda and Parkridge) fail the sequential test in both PPS 6 and draft PPS 4. There is no material change in the Draft PPS 4 to the definition of primary and secondary frontages as it is stated in respect of the local planning approach to town centres that local planning authorities should – “Define the extent of the primary shopping area and the town centre on their proposals map and consider distinguishing between primary and secondary frontages in designated town centres with policies that make clear which uses will be permitted in such locations. Primary frontages should contain a high proportion of retail uses while secondary frontages provide a greater opportunity for flexibility and a diversity of uses.” The impact test is more detailed than the current PPS6 and as with PPS6 it is made clear that the cumulative impact of schemes needs to be assessed. The needs test is no longer a standalone test for determining planning applications although under point 6 of the new impact assessment it remains necessary to take account of expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years ahead in assessing the forecast diversion of trade from centres. In addition, considerations relating to the scale and accessibility of developments form part of the impact test. In addition the impact test has been reinforced with specific requirements to assess whether the proposal will limit CO2 emissions over the lifetime of the development, the impact on existing and planned investment in centres and whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design. Therefore in terms of the concern regarding the sequential test, diversion of trade from the centre, and subsequent impact on the town centre including risking potential investment from development of the sequentially preferable site, there would not be any major change in the way the applications need to be considered in line with draft PPS 4. Given that PPS 4 is still in draft form, nothing in the draft document outweighs current advice in PPS 6. Conclusions in Respect of Retail Issues To summarise the retail policy position, therefore, it is considered that there is need for the development, that the proposal is of an appropriate scale for the catchment proposed to be served, and that the site is also reasonably accessible by public transport. However, it is also considered that there is no persuasive evidence that the sequentially preferable car park and Ford garage sites are unlikely to come forward within a reasonable time period, and that those sites’ apparent availability and suitability indicates that the proposed development would not meet the requirements of the sequential test. Furthermore, in view of this conclusion, it is considered that the (not inconsiderable) impact on the existing town centre would not be justified (whether in isolation, or in combination with the sequentially preferable Parkridge scheme), and could lead to unwarranted harm to the vitality and viability of the town centre. Finally, approval of the scheme could prejudice the potential redevelopment of the Belvoir Centre / car park, to the long-term detriment of the town centre. Local Plan Policy R15 As noted above, the site is designated under Policy R15 of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan as a Town Centre Services Area. In particular, Policy R15 provides that: “The following uses will be permitted within the Town Centre Services Area fronting onto Wolsey Road,



73

Coalville, identified on the Proposals Map: (a) Business use (Class B1); (b) Retail uses falling outside the definition of ‘shop’ (Class A1); and (c) Assembly and leisure uses (Class D2).” It will be noted that the policy is a permissive rather than a restrictive policy in that it specifies a range of uses (of which the proposed use is not one) and, as such, the view could be taken that the proposed development would not actually be in conflict with the policy, although it could also be argued that the proposals would nevertheless conflict with the intentions of that policy. Regardless, however, it is not considered that the harm to the implementation of the Local Plan policies would be so great as to warrant a refusal of the scheme in terms of this policy. It is also noted that concerns have been raised as to the impact of the proposals on other premises within the R15 policy area, particularly to the north of the application site. In terms of this issue it is accepted that the undeveloped areas to the rear would, to some extent, be “isolated”. However, it is not accepted that any such impacts would be materially greater than they are already, having regard to the existing position on the site, nor that the presence of the proposed development would make the undeveloped sites less attractive, including in terms of future redevelopment potential. Access / Highway Safety As outlined above, the application site is now proposed to be accessed via a new signal controlled junction at the Mantle Lane / Market Street / Memorial Square, including significant alterations to the existing configuration of Memorial Square. At the Planning Committee on 7 April 2009, the concerns of the County Highway Authority were reported and, on the basis of these concerns, the application recommended for refusal by virtue of what it considered would be a considerable increase in average journey times, length of queues and consequent worsening of air quality and noise disturbance on the Belvoir Road approach to the Memorial Square junction. The County Highway Authority advised that it considered that the increase in average journey times would be unacceptable and would result in increased queue lengths, as well as impacting upon air quality and noise. Furthermore, because of the constrained nature of the proposed site off Market Street and its proximity to the Memorial Square signalised junction, the County Highway Authority was of the view that there was little opportunity to carry out any post-construction mitigating works should the application be permitted and the need subsequently arise. In respect of the revised proposals, the County Highway Authority advises that the applicant has submitted additional information in support of the application, including a revised LINSIG analysis, and that the information submitted demonstrates that the impact of traffic generated by the development can be mitigated against. However, the County Highway Authority does clarify that its comments relate solely to this planning application, and that “the collective impact of this and other rival applications has not been considered”. On this basis, therefore, it is considered that the applicants have overcome the previously-recommended reason for refusal relating to the detrimental impact on the functioning of the surrounding highway network. However, since the application was first reported to the Planning Committee in April 2009, and as reported in the “Update” report to the Committee of 7 July 2009, the Authority has been



74

advised that modelling work of the highways implications of, not only the various schemes in isolation, but also each of the other scenarios involving the proposed developments for each of the sequentially preferable sites should be undertaken. The County Highway Authority has been unable to undertake such work and the District Council has therefore engaged consultants (Savell Bird and Axon) to carry it out. At the time of drafting this report, a new Transport Assessment was being prepared in support of the Belvoir Centre application (ref. 09/00359/FULM) following the raising of significant Local Highway Authority concerns in respect of the originally submitted Assessment’s robustness. As such, the work undertaken thus far by Savell Bird and Axon is limited to the cumulative impact of those schemes supported by a Transport Assessment considered to form an appropriate basis for a cumulative review (i.e. Asda and Parkridge). Insofar as the cumulative highways assessment in respect of the Asda and Parkridge schemes is concerned, the Council’s highways consultants have assessed the impact on a number of key junctions within Coalville, namely Memorial Square, Hotel Street / Whitwick Road, London Road / Forest Road, Stephenson Way / Thornborough Road and Stephenson Way / Whitwick Road, including likely conditions up to 2014. As per the approach used by Barton WIllmore set out above in respect of cumulative retail impact, Savell Bird and Axon acknowledge that, in reality, were both the Asda and Parkridge schemes implemented, they would compete with one another, such that their combined level of trips would be less than if the two stores were operated in isolation. However, in order to allow for a “worst case” scenario, the cumulative assessment has been prepared on the assumption that the two schemes would generate the same level of trips as predicted in each application’s respective Traffic Assessment. In terms of the junctions assessed, the assessment anticipates the following positions in 2014 in the event of both schemes being implemented: Memorial Square: If the junction improvement proposed by Asda were implemented the junction would operate with spare capacity in 2014 with the Asda and Parkridge development traffic assigned to the network. Hotel Street / Whitwick Road, London Road / Forest Road and Stephenson Way / Thornborough Road: These junctions are expected to operate with considerable spare capacity in 2014 and would continue to operate with spare capacity even if the Asda and Parkridge development traffic was assigned to the network. As such, no improvements are considered to be required to these junctions. Stephenson Way / Whitwick Road: This junction is expected to operate with spare capacity in 2014 and would continue to operate with spare capacity even if the Asda and Parkridge development traffic was assigned to the network. The Council’s highways consultants advise that the Whitwick Road arm of the junction is approaching capacity in the weekday PM peak but note that the results are for a peak 15 minute period within the peak hour which has a flow in excess of the average during the hour. Furthermore, given that a robust development scenario has been modelled (i.e. worst case scenario), the actual development flows are therefore likely to be less than estimated. On this basis, therefore, the Council’s highways consultants consider that the performance of this junction is satisfactory and no improvements would be required. As noted above, the cumulative highways analysis carried out to date relates solely to the cumulative impacts of the Asda and Parkridge schemes, and Members will need to bear in mind the potential issues that could arise in terms of cumulative highways impacts involving one or other or both of those proposals in combination with the development of the Belvoir Centre / car park site. At this time, however, it would not be considered appropriate to refuse the Asda scheme on this basis given that the Local Planning Authority does not currently have any



75

information to substantiate any such concerns. Overall in terms of cumulative highways impacts, however, it is concluded that, subject to the implementation of the applicant’s proposed alterations to the Memorial Square junction, there would be no cumulative highways impediment to the Asda and Parkridge schemes coming forward together. Design and Impact on Amenity The originally submitted design was very much of a “standard” utilitarian type unit typically used by Asda throughout the UK, and involved the siting of the proposed retail unit further back into the site. However, following extensive negotiations between the applicants and officers (and, in particular, the District Council’s Urban Designer), significant amendments evolved. The application was also the subject of review by the Regional Architecture Centre (OPUN) Design Review Panel. At pre-application stage, the Local Planning Authority provided design guidance for the proposed development site. Key objectives cited within the development brief prepared by the Council were to: - To secure a strong building line along the site’s frontage to strengthen enclosure of Memorial Square, - To secure easy and direct pedestrian access to the store and secure strong visual connections to the building from the edge of the town centre. It was considered at the time the application was reported to the Planning Committee on 7 April 2009 that the amended scheme largely reflected these design principles and responded positively to the comments made by OPUN and, in particular, was at that time considered to respond better to the challenges and opportunities of the site following a more flexible approach to the design of what is a large supermarket. It was reported that the scheme as amended clearly deviated from the “standard” Asda portfolio product but, in turn, successfully demonstrated, in officers’ views, that the aspirations of both the operator and the Local Planning Authority could be met. The building as amended was considered to offer a more distinctive character by drawing upon the National Forest as a source of inspiration in the form of its selection of materials (in particular timber), a coloured glazed atrium and the inclusion of a “feature wall” to the car park elevation which is effective in transforming what would have been a bland and featureless white clad elevation into a more creative and distinctive response. In terms of the building design, subject to some further minor alterations to the elevational treatment, the proposals are considered acceptable. In addition, the development was considered to form a much improved relationship with the street than the originally submitted scheme and, in particular, Memorial Square, significant efforts were made to soften the design of the highways works. Whilst the scheme was affected by highways-related constraints, the store was considered to have been located in the best possible position with respect to its relationship to the street and the square, therefore creating a stronger urban structure. As set out above, however, in order to resolve highways objections, the scheme has undergone major changes to the design of highways and the public realm in the vicinity of Memorial Square. Memorial Square is a significant nodal space with the town, with the distinctive War Memorial as a central feature. Currently the square is largely traffic dominated and pedestrian access and



76

amenity is compromised by this traffic domination. The District Council’s Urban Designer considers that any improvement to this space should seek to reduce or minimise further traffic domination of this space and reinforce the physical and visual connection of the edges of the space to its centre. By contrast, however, it is considered that the revised proposals would significantly increase traffic dominance within the square and the amount of highways infrastructure introduced within the area would have a major and detrimental impact to the amenity of the area and the prioritisation of pedestrian access (both visually and physically). For its part, OPUN considers that the scheme fails to provide a positive design response to the existing surroundings, that it fails to consider the highway design in conjunction with the public realm design and that the highway design of the scheme is excessive for the amount of traffic designed for, the result being an over-engineered proposal which would be confusing and potentially dangerous for pedestrians and road users. Furthermore, it is considered that the setting of the Clock Tower and public access to this important structure within the town would be negatively affected by placing it at the centre of the reconfigured junction. Whilst it is recognised that this was the case historically, and remained the case until the earlier part of this decade, it should be borne in mind that the level of traffic is significantly higher today than when the Clock Tower comfortably sat in the centre of the space in this manner. Whilst it is accepted that the Clock Tower is not offered any statutory protection (e.g. listing), these concerns are shared by the District Council’s Conservation Officer who feels that the proposed traffic arrangements forming part of the scheme would negatively impact on the setting of the Memorial Clock Tower, considered to be the most iconic of Coalville's buildings, and on the quality of what he considers should be the town's principal civic space. Again, these concerns are reflected in the response from OPUN which expresses concern that locating the Clock Tower within a traffic island would not be an appropriate solution to reinforce the importance of this landmark building. The visual dominance of the new highways infrastructure would, it is considered, have a significant and long lasting negative impact on this part of the town and would be further exaggerated by the introduction of features such as pedestrian refuges, guardrails and line markings. On this basis the District Council’s Urban Designer strongly advises against allowing a single development to dictate the highways infrastructure to such a degree. Furthermore, he does not accept the applicants’ claim in their addendum to their Design and Access Statement that pedestrian links would be improved as a result of the development. It is considered that the elements of the public realm will not offer the same qualities as the previous scheme in terms of the demarcated bus lane, when comparing the revised proposals to those previously submitted. Similarly, OPUN considers that the amount of highway surfacing and vehicle turning lanes introduced would significantly harm the urban fabric of the Memorial Square area, with no design priorities being given to place making and pedestrian movement principles. Of the key design objectives identified by the District Council’s Urban Designer as set out above, the objective of securing easy and direct pedestrian access to the store and secure strong visual connections to the building from the edge of the town centre would, it is considered, be significantly compromised by the revised proposals. On this basis, therefore, it is considered that the objectives of RSS 8 Policy 2 and Local Plan Policy E4 would not be met by the proposals, and refusal is recommended on this issue. In addition, as part of a joint initiative with the District Council, the Prince’s Foundation for the



77

Built Environment led an Enquiry by Design master planning workshop in the town in June 2009, with a view to developing a long-term vision for the redevelopment of Coalville Town Centre, the contents of which are intended to form the Coalville Town Centre Regeneration Strategy Report (expected to be delivered by the end of 2009). It is intended that the Regeneration Strategy Report will set out a vision for how the town should develop over the coming decades in response to the challenges revealed during the master planning workshop. The Foundation has advocated the development of the Four Squares Proposal, a concept of four squares (namely Marlborough Square, Memorial Square, “Market Square” (a new space located at the eastern end of the existing Belvoir Centre) and “Stenson Square” (a new space located at the junction of Whitwick Road and London Road)), linked by coherent and vibrant streets, developed as a design solution to the currently disconnected pedestrian and vehicular network and degraded public spaces within the town centre. Insofar as Memorial Square is concerned, the Foundation advocates developing the Square into a civic hub, and the illustrative plan accompanying its report appears to indicate a considerably larger area around the Clock Tower dedicated to pedestrian use than would be the case with the current remodelling proposals. The Foundation is also clear in its advice in that it is of the view that the failure to deliver each of the four squares and the associated street network would severely compromise the town's ability to regenerate itself as these elements are mutually reinforcing. It is accepted that the early stage this process has reached significantly reduces the weight that can currently be attributed to it as a material consideration. Nevertheless, on the basis of the Foundation’s recommended approach, and having regard to the highways-dominated nature of the Square that would be considered to result from the works proposed in connection with the Asda scheme, it would seem that the Foundation’s objectives for the Square and, hence, for the strategy as a whole, would be likely to be prejudiced to a significant degree. In terms of neighbours’ amenities, it is noted that the site is located away from residential property such that any impacts are likely to be limited to those associated with additional vehicular movements etc (but not, it is considered, to an unacceptable degree). Given the location of the store, it is not considered that there would be any need for limitations to be imposed in respect of hours of use or deliveries. It is considered that the requirements of Local Plan Policy E3 would be satisfied in this regard. Other Issues In terms of other issues affecting the proposed development, the following conclusions are reached: It is noted that the proposed development would result in the loss of the public toilets on the site. However, subject to the provision of in-store toilets for use by the general public, the Council’s Head of Street Management has no objections. In terms of planning obligations, the applicants have agreed general heads of terms for inclusion within a Section 106 agreement in the event the application were to be permitted. These are as follows: Town Centre Improvements / Town Centre Partnership: Commuted sum of £25,000 proposed to contribute towards enhanced town centre signage and / or a “linkage lighting scheme” (or similar), and monies associated with a public consultation on potential improvements to Marlborough Square. Public Realm:



78

Commuted sum of £15,000 Town Centre “Gateway” Enhancements Commuted sum of £20,000 proposed to contribute towards enhancements to the approach to the town centre from the Mantle Lane direction. CCTV A commuted sum of £74,500 has been agreed by the applicants with the District Council (in consultation with Leicestershire Police), which would enable the integration of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems. A commuted sum of £40,000 had previously been agreed with the District Council which would have covered the cost of purchase / installation of a new camera plus five years’ maintenance / monitoring; following the subsequent request by the Police for ANPR systems to be incorporated, the increased sum has now been offered. National Forest planting: Payment of a commuted sum of £22,500 (based on a contribution of £10,000 per hectare of the site area as set out in the National Forest Strategy (although relating specifically to the site of the building itself)). Highways / Public Transport The applicants have been in direct discussions with Leicestershire County Council in respect of these matters; the contributions agreed between the applicants and the County Council are as follows: Provision of travel packs to all members of staff (£34 per pack if provided via the County Council) Provision of three month bus passes to all members of staff (£220 per pass if provided via the County Council) Introduction of real time information at four bus stops on Memorial Square (£20,000) Introduction of real time information display within the store (£6,000) A previously-agreed contribution of £24,735 towards the upgrading of Service 11 is no longer required by the County Council. In addition, the County Council will also require payment to cover the costs of works to the reconfigured junctions (previously £36,420, but now under review); this would, however, be secured by way of a Section 278 Agreement between the applicants and the Local Highway Authority, rather than via the Section 106 Agreement. Travel Plan Provision of a Travel Plan for employees. Subject to the resolution of the CCTV issue highlighted above, it is considered that the above would represent reasonable contributions secured under Section 106 in respect of the proposed development. Conclusions Overall, however, it is considered that the scheme would be unacceptable, having regard to the concerns over sequential approach and the impact on existing centres (including prospects for redevelopment of the existing town centre).. Refusal is therefore recommended. RECOMMENDATION- REFUSE, for the following reason(s):



79


applicants to demonstrate that there are no more central sites for the development. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that sequentially preferable sites are not available, suitable or viable and, as such, the proposals would be harmful to the vitality and viability of Coalville town centre, contrary to the provisions of PPS 6.


applicants to demonstrate that there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres. By virtue of (i) the anticipated impact on trade within the existing town centre, particularly given the presence of sequentially preferable sites referred to above; and (ii) the impacts of the proposed development on the prospects of redeveloping the town centre, the proposed development would have a materially adverse impact on the existing town centre area, contrary to the provisions of PPS 6.

3 Policy 2 of the East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS 8) seeks to improve continuously the

layout, design and construction of new development; Policy E4 of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan seeks to achieve good design in new development. By virtue of the proposed vehicular access arrangements serving the development and their visual dominance, the scheme would isolate the existing public space around the Clock Tower war memorial, to the detriment of its setting and to the amenities of the surrounding area, and would compromise pedestrian accessibility, contrary to the aims of Policy 2 of RSS 8 and Policy E4 of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan.

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the ... · are shown comprising 18 affordable...

Documents

Transcript of Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the ... · are shown comprising 18 affordable...