DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL 17 JUNE 2013 Case No: 1200633OUT (OUTLINE APPLICATION) Proposal: HYBRID APPLICATION COMPRISING FULL PLANNING

PERMISSION FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF LIDL FOODSTORE WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, SERVICING AND CONSTRUCTION OF BOTH ACCESS POINTS. OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION OF 14 APARTMENTS (FOR SOCIAL RENT), WHICH WILL BE DEVELOPED AS PHASE 2 OF CONSTRUCTION OF WORKS

Location: LAND SOUTH OF FERN COURT STUKELEY ROAD Applicant: LIDL UK GMBH (FAO DR W HURST) Grid Ref: 523322 272445 Date of Registration: 23.10.2012 Parish: HUNTINGDON

RESOLUTION - REFUSE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

On 29 May 2013 the application company has lodged an appeal against the non-determination of this planning application. The decision will now be made, following a Hearing at a date to be agreed, by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. As part of the appeal the Local Planning Authority will need to set out its case. The Panel is therefore asked to indicate the decision it would have made on the application.

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION 1.1 This is a hybrid planning application with full planning permission

sought for the erection of a Lidl foodstore measuring some 1,600m2 gross (1,063.3m2 net). The full application also includes the associated car parking (78 spaces), vehicular and pedestrian accesses and landscaping which would serve the proposed store. The proposed access to the residential phase of development is also included in this phase.

1.2 The dimensions of the proposed store are:

* Height: monopitch roof maximum 8 metres; minimum 4.8 metres – store height increases from southeast to northwest * Depth: maximum 10.8 metres – 8.8 metres facing Stukeley Road * Width: maximum 23.6 metres

1.3 The other part of the hybrid planning application seeks outline

planning permission for the erection of 14 apartments together with the associated vehicular access. The description of the application

confirms that the apartments would be for affordable housing (social rent). The indicative layout of the residential scheme is in an L-shape form.

1.4 The proposed scale parameters for the residential component are:

* Height: 3 storeys – maximum 11.3 metres; * Width: maximum 32 metres; * Depth: maximum 7.2 metres

1.5 The application site itself comprises approximately 0.77 hectares of

land immediately to the west of the railway line on the south-western side of Stukeley Road. The site currently comprises three bungalows, two 2-storey dwellings and the Alda Motors garage which is currently being used for the sale of cars. All of the buildings are proposed to be demolished in order to make way for the proposal.

1.6 There is a walnut tree on the site of the proposed residential

development and this is afforded protection by virtue of a Tree Preservation Order.

1.7 Surrounding land uses include:

* Open land/skateboard and play area to the west; * Flatted residential development to the north; * Residential dwellings to the north-east; * Industrial buildings to the north.

1.8 Stukeley Road is a 30 mph speed limit at this point and traffic is

controlled/regulated by the existing signal controlled pedestrian crossing immediately to the north of the application site and the signal controlled junction between Stukeley Road, St Peter’s Road and Ermine Street (under the Iron Bridge).

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE 2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) sets out the three

dimensions to sustainable development - an economic role, a social role and an environmental role - and outlines the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Under the heading of Delivering Sustainable Development, the Framework sets out the Government's planning policies for : building a strong, competitive economy; ensuring the vitality of town centres; supporting a prosperous rural economy; promoting sustainable transport; supporting high quality communications infrastructure; delivering a wide choice of high quality homes; requiring good design; promoting healthy communities; protecting Green Belt land; meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change; conserving and enhancing the natural environment; conserving and enhancing the historic environment; and facilitating the sustainable use of minerals.

2.2 Planning for Town Centres: Practice Guide on need, impact and the

sequential approach (December 2009). This guide provides information regarding assessing retail need and forecasting additional floorspace, the indicators which inform the overall impact of a proposal and the tests to be undertaken as part of the sequential approach.

For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy. 3. PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) Saved policies from the

Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95

H30: “Existing Residential Areas” – Planning permission will not

normally be granted for the introduction of, or extension to, commercial uses or activities within existing residential areas where this would be likely to have a detrimental effect on amenities.

H31: “Residential privacy and amenity standards” – Indicates that

new dwellings will only be permitted where appropriate standards of privacy can be maintained and adequate parking provided.

H37: “Environmental Pollution” – housing development will not be

permitted in locations where there is a known source of environmental pollution which would be detrimental to residential amenity.

H38: “Noise Pollution” – development sites adjoining main

highways, railways, industrial operations and other potentially damaging noise pollution sources will be required to adopt adequate design solutions to create acceptable ambient noise levels within the dwellings and their curtilage.

S2: “Individual Shopping Proposals” – need to be satisfactory in

terms of siting, design, car parking, servicing, accessibility by car, foot, cycle and public transport, environmental impact, conservation, alternative use of the land and any other relevant Local Plan policies.

T18: “Access requirements for new development” states

development should be accessed by a highway of acceptable design and appropriate construction.

T19: “Pedestrian Routes and Footpath” – new developments are

required to provide safe and convenient pedestrian routes having due regard to existing and planned footpath routes in the area.

En5: “Conservation Area Character” - development within or

directly affecting conservation areas will be required to preserve or enhance their character and appearance.

En9: “Conservation Areas” - development should not impair open

spaces, trees, street scenes and views into and out of Conservation Areas.

En12: “Archaeological Implications” – permission on sites of

archaeological interest may be conditional on the implementation

of a scheme of archaeological recording prior to development commencing.

En20: Landscaping Scheme. - Wherever appropriate a

development will be subject to the conditions requiring the execution of a landscaping scheme.

En25: "General Design Criteria" - indicates that the District

Council will expect new development to respect the scale, form, materials and design of established buildings in the locality and make adequate provision for landscaping and amenity areas.

CS8: “Water” – satisfactory arrangements for the availability of

water supply, sewerage and sewage disposal facilities, surface water run-off facilities and provision for land drainage will be required.

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002) Saved policies from

the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)

HL5 – Quality and Density of Development - sets out the criteria

to take into account in assessing whether a proposal represents a good design and layout.

HL6 – Housing Density - indicates that housing development shall

be at a density of 30-50 dwellings per hectare.

3.3 Policies from the Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2009 are relevant and viewable at http://www.huntsdc.gov.uk click on Environment and Planning then click on Planning then click on Planning Policy and then click on Core Strategy where there is a link to the Adopted Core Strategy.

CS1: “Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire” – all

developments will contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development, having regard to social, environmental and economic issues. All aspects will be considered including design, implementation and function of development. Including reducing water consumption and wastage, minimising impact on water resources and water quality and managing flood risk.

CS3: “The Settlement Hierarchy” – Identifies Huntingdon as a

Market Town in which development schemes of all scales may be appropriate in built up areas.

CS8: “Land for Retail Development” – at least 4,000m2 of

convenience floorspace across the District to serve the population growth will be provided before 2026.

CS10: “Contributions to Infrastructure Requirements” – proposals

will be expected to provide or contribute towards the cost of providing infrastructure and of meeting social and environmental requirements, where these are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

3.4 Policies from the Adopted Huntingdon West Area Action Plan 2011 are relevant and viewable at http://www.huntsdc.gov.uk click on Environment and Planning then click on Planning then click on Planning Policy and then click on Huntingdon West Area Action Plan.

Policy HW4: Development sites in the George Street/Ermine

Street area - identifies that a mixed use including retail development of approximately 5,350 m2 of retail development which is complementary to the continuing vitality and viability of the town centre and does not jeopardise the delivery of further redevelopment at Chequers Court would be appropriate on 6 hectares of land in the George Street/Ermine Street area of the overall site.

3.5 Policies from the Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3

(2013)

LP1: “Strategy and principles for development” – market towns will make provision for new homes and support economic development that serves needs in the most sustainable locations. Development proposals will be expected to contribute to the creation of mixed and socially inclusive communities and support the local economy.

LP2: “Planning obligations” – may be required to make proposals acceptable in planning terms.

LP3: “Communications Infrastructure” – proposals will support

and help implement the aims and objectives of the ‘Connecting Cambridgeshire’ broadband initiative.

LP6: “Flood Risk and Water Management” – sets out criteria for

flooding and surface water management.

LP8: “Development in the Spatial Planning Areas” – within the Huntingdon SPA a proposal which includes housing will be supported where it is appropriately located within the built-up area. A proposal which includes economic development will be supported where it is appropriately located within the built-up area. An appropriate location for retail will be determined though the sequential approach (within the NPPF). Where the proposal includes more than 600 sqm of net retail floorspace an impact assessment will be required.

LP13: “Quality of Design” – proposals will need to be designed to

a high standard based on a thorough understanding of the site and its context.

LP14: “Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions” – sets out requirements for new dwellings.

LP15: “Ensuring a High Standard of Amenity” – a proposal will be supported where a high standard of amenity is provided. A proposal will be expected to demonstrate how it addresses the duration and character of noise and the potential for adverse impacts on air quality.

LP17: “Sustainable Travel” – a proposal will be supported where it is demonstrated that opportunities are maximised for the use of sustainable travel modes, traffic volumes can be accommodated and will not cause significant harm to the character of the surrounding area, any adverse effects of traffic movement to, from and within the site are minimised, a clear network of routes is provided and safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle routes are provided where appropriate.

LP18: “Parking Provision” – proposals will be supported where

they incorporate appropriately designed vehicle and cyle parking with a clear justification for the level, having regard to the potential to increase the use of alternative transport modes.

LP20: “Ensuring Town Centre Vitality and Viability” – the town

centre of Huntingdon will be a major focus for all new town centre uses.

LP24: “Housing Mix” – a proposal will be supported where the

size, types and tenures of housing responds to local needs.

LP25: “Affordable Housing Provision” – a proposal for 10 or more homes or 0.3ha in size will be expected to deliver a target of 40% affordable housing.

LP28: “Biodiversity and Protected Habitats and Species” – a

proposal will be supported where it does not give rise to significant adverse impacts. If adverse impacts are found then every effort should be made to minimise these via mitigation. Where this cannot be achieved then alternative forms of compensation will be considered. A proposal will aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity.

LP29: “Trees, Woodland and Related Features” – a proposal will

be supported where it avoids the loss of, and minimises the risk of harm to trees and hedges. Where their loss is unavoidable this will be acceptable where there are sound arboricultural reasons and the proposal will bring benefits which outweigh the loss.

LP31: “Heritage Assets and their Settings” – great weight is given

to the conservation of any heritage asset. 3.6 Proposed Allocation HU5 suggests that the site should be allocated

for approximately 70 homes subject to certain criteria being satisfied. 3.7 Huntingdonshire District Council Urban Design Framework – West of

Stukeley Road, Huntingdon (July 2005). This framework promoted the site and wider area for residential development.

3.8 Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2007). 3.9 Huntingdonshire Retail Development Advice (2010). 4. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Of relevance to this proposal is:

0800979FUL and 0802057FUL – both proposals were for the erection of 68 apartments. Although both applications were ultimately withdrawn, both went to Development Management Panel meetings and received resolutions to grant planning permission. As the Section 106 agreement, which was required to make the development acceptable was never signed, the applications were withdrawn in 2008 and 2010 respectively.

1001467FUL – this application was for a Lidl foostore on a smaller site than currently proposed (it excluded the Alda Motors site). The application was, in accordance with the recommendation from officers, refused planning permission at the November 2010 Development Management Panel for the following four reasons:

1) The applicant has failed to provide an adequate and robust sequential assessment and as such has failed to demonstrate why the proposal cannot be located within the town centre, or that the development proposed would not have an adverse impact on planned retail development within Huntingdon Town Centre and Huntingdon West, contrary to PPS4, CS8 and P4. 2) The proposed development by virtue of its siting, design, layout and landscaping fails to represent a high quality designed scheme that enhances the appearance of the area, resulting in a bulky, uninspiring development that projects beyond the built form, such that the scheme will be over dominant when viewed from the adjacent formal open space to its detriment and visually harmful to the townscape and is located in close proximity to the adjacent footway/cycleway such that the proposal will be detrimental to the openness and natural surveillance required for well used footway/cycleway. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to policy ENV7 of the Regional Spatial Strategy, policies E8, S2, T19, En25 and En27 of the Local Plan 1995, policies E1, E2 and E7 of the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010. 3) The proposed development by virtue of its proximity, bulk, massing and layout will result in overshadowing to the adjacent residential block, a loss of outlook afforded to these properties and an unreasonable level of disturbance resulting from early morning/late night deliveries, such that cumulatively the proposed development will result in an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity afforded to the adjacent residential properties, contrary to policies H30, H31 and S2 of the Local Plan 1995, policies E1 and H7 of the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission. 4) The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the there would be no detrimental harm to the health and longevity of the TPO Walnut Tree on site, which by virtue of the species is highly vulnerable to disturbance, contrary to policy En18 of the Local Plan 1995 and policy E5 of the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010.

4.2 Although not specific to this site is also noteworthy that a previous

application by the applicants (9900023FUL) on land off Brookside (opposite the park) was refused planning permission in July 1999. An appeal was subsequently dismissed in January 2000. Within the

appeal decision the Inspector, amongst other things, concluded that: there was a qualitative need for a ‘discount’ food retailer; and the availability of the Chequers Court redevelopment was not adequately considered – a period of 5 years was considered reasonable as an appropriate timescale in terms of the assessment of availability of potential alternative sites.

5. CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Four rounds of public consultation have been undertaken. The first

related to the original application; the second to the drainage information which was subsequently received; the third being the additional retail analysis undertaken by the applicant’s agent and the fourth being the updated transport information. The responses are set out below having regard to each round of consultation:

First round: 5.2 Huntingdon Town Council Recommend REFUSAL (copy

attached): The Panel considers that the development will give rise to increased vehicular movements both accessing and egressing the site and that the highways infrastructure at this location is not capable of accommodating this, which causes concern for safety.

5.3 HDC Environmental Protection Team: conditions suggested relating

to noise mitigation within both the residential development (in terms of glazing, acoustic ventilation and sound reduction within the roof) and the retail proposal (no deliveries outside the hours of 07:00 – 23:00 and the approval of a scheme to control noise from the air handling plant). With regard to land contamination the findings of the contaminated land report are agreed. Planning condition recommended.

5.4 CCC Archaeology: records indicate that the site is located in an area

of high archaeological potential in the historic town of Huntingdon. The site has been subject to an archaeological evaluation, the results of which indicate that archaeological remains associated with the medieval settlement of the town survive in the area (HER ECB2947). These important archaeological remains would be destroyed by the proposed development. A programme of archaeological investigation would therefore be appropriate to mitigate the impact of the development on these important archaeological remains and we would recommend that this is commissioned and undertaken at the expense of the developer and secured through the inclusion of a negative condition of planning permission.

5.5 Natural England: suggested that bats may be present although

having worked through their own standing advice the submitted documents lead to the conclusion that permission can be granted subject to mitigation.

5.6 CCC Highways: no objection to the proposed development subject to

the following being secured as part of the S106:

* A contribution of £7,000 per stop to the County Council for the provision of Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) at the two bus stops to the south of the site on Stukeley Road;

* A contribution of £1,000 per stop to Huntingdonshire District Council for the future maintenance of the two bus stops to the south of the site on Stukeley Road; * Provision and installation of new bus shelters and associated streetworks including raised kerbs at the two bus stops to the south of the site on Stukeley Road, to be agreed with the County Council Passenger Transport Team; * Development and implementation of a travel plan and associated targets. In relation to technical matters: * The footway to the site frontage is indicated on the scaled plans provided as in excess of 2.5m, however this has not been dimensioned therefore I would request that this is conditioned. * The plan indicates the extra signal head requested however there are various other details that need to be included such as tactile paving across the access therefore a detailed design is required to be provided prior to construction, which will form part of a highways 106 agreement with the highway authority. * The parking has been indicated by the T.A. to be acceptable in regards to the proposed numbers. Tracking for the delivery has been provided which indicates that the manoeuvring takes place off the highway and within the site itself, although not an ideal situation from a point of mixing shoppers and delivery vehicles the amount of deliveries proposed is once per day and therefore could be overcome by timed deliveries or the implementation of onsite health and safety procedure. Please append conditions to any consent relating to: closure of existing access; construction of new access; provision of on-site parking, manoeuvring, drainage and surfacing; access drainage; engineering scheme for access; provide 2.5m wide footpath along Stukeley Road frontage.

5.7 Alconbury and Ellington IDB: object due to lack of flood risk

assessment and details of finished floor levels. 5.8 Cambs Fire and Rescue: request that adequate provision for fire

hydrants be made via a planning condition. 5.9 HDC Housing Policy and Enabling Officer: provision of affordable

housing is not an adopted policy requirement although this is welcomed.

5.10 Huntingdon Town Partnership: fully supportive of this type of store in

Huntingdon however Council policy seeks to resist further large retail developments outside the town centre. The Council has supported the success of the Town Centre and has been at the forefront of the major restructuring of the town centre and the extension towards the railway station. Any out of town retail developments have the potential to weaken the focus of the town centre and have a detrimental affect. Also serious concerns over parking and highway safety and the discharge of traffic onto the main road into the town centre.

Second round:

5.11 Environment Agency: planning conditions suggested regarding remediation strategy for land contamination. No objection on flood risk grounds.

Third round: 5.12 No comments received. Fourth round: 5.13 Huntingdon Town Council – note further submissions.

1 letter of objection from Cllr Shellens – summarised thus: - A Lidl store would be a good thing for Huntingdon - Application site is not the correct location - Objection based on traffic movements - Road will become busier with other new developments - Movements across Stukeley Road

6. REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 7 letters of support (one of which is seconded by three further

residents; two letters are from the same address) – comments summarised thus:

- Would be an asset to Huntingdon; - Good use of land which at the moment is a blot on the landscape; - Would provide homes and work for many people; - Currently use the Lidl store in St Neots; - Range of food and other items make it an interesting store; - Jobs; - Complementary range of items which will not compete with other town centre food shops; - Linkage to town centre stores; - Good value for money; - Style of building is appropriate; - Ten minutes walk to town centre;

6.2 4 letters of objection – including three from local residents (one of

whom is the owner/occupier of 2 Stukeley Road (opposite the site)), and one from Churchmanor Estates and Manormaker (the developer behind the proposed Chequers Court redevelopment in Huntingdon Town Centre). Comments summarised thus:

Local residents:

- Traffic volume with access too near the traffic lights and pedestrian crossing; - Already have trouble getting out of own vehicular access; - Traffic has increased in the last 25 years with no improvements to the road; - Why have a commercial unit stuck in the middle of a new housing project? Would be more appropriate in a less built up area; - Whilst supports a Lidl store in the town it should be between the ring road and the station; - Noise from railway and skate park and conditions for future occupiers;

- History of accidents on the road. Churchmanor Estates and Manormaker Initial response:

- fails the sequential and impact tests; - application site is out-of-centre in retail terms and therefore alternative sites closer to the town centre must be considered; - former M&S Simply Food retail unit could be on a short or medium term lease (officers note: this is now occupied by the British Heart Foundation); - the existing Waitrose unit is currently being marketed and is therefore available; - existing Waitrose unit is suitable for a Lidl store – other Lidl stores operate in that manner; - impact assessment is general; - prospects of letting the Waitrose unit once this relocates to Chequers Court are considered slim; - growth in retail expenditure will be taken up by existing commitments; - Existing Waitrose not considered to be suitable for a comparison retailer; - Lidl store may reduce Waitrose’s rental bid which may affect the viability of the Churchmanor Estates and Manormaker scheme at Chequers Court.

Response to further retail analysis:

- maintain objection but should the Council be minded to approve the application then conditions should be imposed in order to control the goods sold and the size of the store

Further response in April 2013:

- I would confirm that it is our intention to commence work on the redevelopment of Chequers Court, in January 2014 following completion of the Multi Story Car Park. We are aiming to deliver the completed scheme in early/mid 2015. I would further confirm that it is still our intention to re-locate Waitrose from their existing store in St Benedict’s Court into a new store in the Chequers Court scheme. The availability of their existing store after re-location is not one that we have any control over, however we would imagine that it would come to the market via the existing freeholders.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES 7.1 The main issues to consider in relation to this proposal are the

principle of the development (retail and residential); highway and parking matters; design and landscaping; impact on amenity (including noise and air quality) and flood risk. Regard also needs to be given to other considerations such as land contamination, archaeology and biodiversity.

The principle of the development (Retail) – the sequential approach and impact

7.2 In order to ‘set the scene’ for the proposal it is relevant to consider the ‘need’ for further retailing as identified within the Council’s Retail Studies. It should be noted though that ‘need’ is not a factor which needs to be demonstrated by the applicant in order for planning permission to be granted.

7.3 Retail need can be broken down into two components – quantitative

and qualitative. 7.4 In terms of quantitative need the emerging retail work being

undertaken alongside the work on the Local Plan to 2036 identifies that there is likely to be limited need in the short to medium term for convenience goods. However it is noted that those conclusions assume a continuation of existing food spending patterns and so no additional need is identified to counter over trading within out of centre stores (principally the Tesco store at Sapley).

7.5 It is also worth noting here that it is likely that additional comparison

goods retail floorspace will need to be delivered over the life of the Local Plan to 2036. The focus for this is likely to be within existing town centres.

7.6 With regard to qualitative need the emerging retail work continues the

views from the previous retail studies in that there is a need for a discount food retailer (such as Lidl) within Huntingdon owing to the lack of choice within the convenience goods sector.

7.7 In essence therefore there is a qualitative need for a discount food

retailer and limited need, based on existing market shares, in quantitative terms.

The Sequential Approach 7.8 The starting point for a retail proposal of this size having regard to

local and national planning policy is that it should be located within the town centre or any site specific retail allocations. In this instance the only relevant site specific policy is Policy H4 of the Huntingdon West Area Action Plan (HWAAP).

7.9 The proposed foodstore is within an out-of-centre location for retail

planning policy purposes – it being over 300 metres from Huntingdon’s Primary Shopping Area. It is also worth noting here that the ring road forms a barrier to pedestrian movement although it is acknowledged that the walking time from the town centre to the site, including having crossed the ring road, is within the order of 10 minutes.

7.10 The sequential test is the means by which the applicant has to

consider whether the proposed development could be located within a location closer to or within the town centre. This was part of the first reason for refusal for the 2010 Lidl planning application.

7.11 The applicant has provided a sequential test and this was updated to

address concerns raised by an objector. The matters to be assessed within the sequential test are set out within the Good Practice Guide with parts 6 and 7 providing detailed guidance. The matters for consideration with regard to the sequential test are:

1) Is the site available either now or is it likely to become available for development within a reasonable period of time? 2) Is the site suitable to accommodate the need or demand which the proposal is intended to meet? In this regard the applicant needs to demonstrate flexibility. 3) Would the development be viable – is there a reasonable prospect that the development will occur at a particular point in time?

7.12 It is not necessary to disprove all three considerations as clearly one

could result in the site being dismissed. 7.13 The applicant suggests that there are a number of retail proposals/

commitments within Huntingdon which collectively have firmed up the future growth of the town centre and the HWAAP site.

7.14 The position regarding the town centre redevelopment has recently

been confirmed as the proposed Sainsbury’s store on the HWAAP has been granted planning permission, the development agreement has been signed and work has commenced on the multi-storey car park. It is understood that the related redevelopment of the existing Sainsbury’s store and the Chequers Court redevelopment scheme, which both already benefit from planning permission, can proceed once the multi-storey car park has been constructed. The Chequers Court site may though undergo enabling works (such as demolition) ahead of this. Officers have been in discussions regarding the discharge of pre-commencement conditions for the Chequers Court redevelopment,

7.15 The submitted sequential test considers town centre sites. Despite an

objection relating to the former M&S Simply Food unit it is accepted that this unit has recently been occupied by the British Heart Foundation. It is accepted therefore that the site is not available.

7.16 The remaining potential town centre site which has been identified is

the existing Waitrose store (Unit A St Benedicts Court). An objector provided information which suggested that this store was on the market and thus was available. However the applicant has suggested that this is not the case. It is clear that Waitrose would only vacate their existing store once the Chequers Court redevelopment has taken place (as they are one of the intended occupiers of the Chequers Court redevelopment).

7.17 In terms of the timeframe over which the availability of a site should

be assessed, the Good Practice Guide suggests that whether it is appropriate to assess availability over three to five years, or a longer time period will depend upon local circumstances.

7.18 In this instance the local circumstances are considered to be the

qualitative need for a discount food retailer in the town which has been consistently identified within the retail analysis which the Council has undertaken, the need to deliver and make available comparison floorspace in order to meet an identified shortfall in that sector together with the importance of delivering a town centre redevelopment to boost the vitality and viability of Huntingdon town centre. These local circumstances do not suggest that a longer

period, i.e. beyond the minimum three years should be considered as the qualitative need is apparent at this time.

7.19 Until recently progress of the town centre redevelopment was

dependent upon a number of actions; these building blocks are now though in place and indeed work is underway on the multi-storey car park which in turn would enable the retail works to progress. Having regard to these considerations and the information supplied by Churchmanor, Officers consider that the existing Waitrose store is likely to become available by mid 2015 (hence within the next 2 years).

7.20 There may be some contrasting views about this assumed timescale

but what is clear is that the steps which need to be undertaken in order for the Waitrose store to become available have recently been the subject of significant progress. Notwithstanding whether or not the Waitrose store is being marketed at this time it is likely to be available within the next 2 years.

7.21 It is also necessary to consider the future developments in the shape

of the Chequers Court redevelopment and the sub-division of the Sainsbury’s store. It is noted that, as set out within that application, Waitrose are the intended end user of the proposed foodstore which is planned within the Chequers Court development. The remainder of the floorspace within both developments is envisaged to be for the sale of predominantly comparison goods in order to seek to deliver the improvements within this sector in the town centre.

7.22 The existing Sainsbury’s store could, in theory, be available for

convenience goods purposes although Lidl have not considered that building within their assessment. That store would not be available until Sainsbury’s relocates and it is envisaged that the building would not be available until mid 2015 – some two years away. The former Sainsbury’s store is due to be sub-divided and would appear therefore to be more suitable for comparison goods.

7.23 The Chequers Court redevelopment would not be available until a

similar timescale as the existing Waitrose store. 7.24 The Good Practice Guide confirms that the urgency of the need is a

consideration when considering the availability as part of the sequential test. However the need should be assessed within 3 years as a minimum and in this case the Waitrose store would be available well within that timeframe.

7.25 Whilst Officers are mindful of the desire to enhance comparison

goods retailing within the town centre the existing Waitrose store is located close to the bus station within an area which is likely to be attractive for convenience goods customers.

7.26 Having regard to suitability the applicants have placed emphasis on

the Lidl business model in seeking to discount the suitability of the existing Waitrose unit. It is argued by the applicants that factors such as the lack of a surface level car park lead to the existing Waitrose store being unsuitable. The existing Waitrose store has a net floorspace of 1,402 m2 and as such it could easily accommodate the scale of retail floorspace being proposed by this application and

within their business model. In addition the floorspace is located over one floor. The presence of a first floor car park over the preferred surface level car park is not, in the view of officers, a material reason to suggest that the existing store is not suitable and the suggestion by the applicants that this is an important consideration is therefore not accepted. The Waitrose unit already includes a lift providing easy access between the car park and the retail unit.

7.27 As such, and despite the reasons and appeals referred to within the

applicants submission, officers are not convinced that the existing Waitrose store is not suitable for a proposed discount food store.

7.28 A viability argument is not presented by the applicants and so is not

considered further by officers. 7.29 Officer’s conclusion is that the only town centre site which has been

worthy of detailed consideration is that of the existing Waitrose store. Officers have concluded that the site could be suitable for a discount food retailer and it is likely to be available by mid 2015. Given the absence of any viability arguments the application fails the sequential test as the Waitrose store is suitable and is likely to be available within two years.

7.30 It is also necessary to consider alternative sites including edge-of-

centre sites. Firstly the HWAAP site, which as noted above includes a commitment of approximately 5,350 m2 of new retail floorspace. The Sainsbury’s permission at this site would take up all of the identified convenience retail floorspace. This leads to two questions – firstly what if, albeit extremely unlikely, the Sainsbury’s development doesn’t go ahead, and, secondly could a discount food retailer take up a further piece of land at the HWAAP site.

7.31 In considering the first point it is considered unlikely that a discount

retailer of this scale (which is under a third of that proposed at the HWAAP site) would be able to act as the catalyst for regeneration and further development which the Sainsbury’s proposal is expected to deliver. This could lead to a scenario whereby the objectives of the HWAAP site are undermined and the delivery of redevelopment in the town centre could therefore be compromised. This is not therefore considered to be a suitable site for a discount retailer in isolation.

7.32 The second question can be considered against the suitability

consideration which must be guided by the development plan policies within the HWAAP which does not point towards additional retail development. The site could not therefore be considered suitable on the basis of current policy.

7.33 In light of this, and whilst it may be physically possible to

accommodate additional retail development on the HWAAP site there are planning policy restrictions which support alternative land uses on the site. Furthermore the provision of additional convenience goods retail floorspace would surpass the 5,350 m2 advocated within Policy HW4 of the HWAAP. The site cannot therefore be considered to be suitable at this time.

7.34 There are not considered to be any available edge-of-centre sites

within Huntingdon.

7.35 In considering out-of-centre sites, paragraph 6.8 of the Good Practice

Guide confirms that where there are no available locations within town centres or edge of centre sites, preference should be given to out of centre sites well served by a choice of means of transport, which are close to the centre and have a higher likelihood of forming links with a centre.

7.36 The application site does benefit from a direct walking link (footpath)

towards the link road where a signal controlled pedestrian crossing provides a walking route into the town centre. Having walked this route Officers consider that there is scope for pedestrians to walk between the store and the town centre when undertaking a small (top-up type) shopping trip. Clearly carrying any number of shopping bags between the two would not be practical. The County Council has requested that the two existing bus stops on Stukeley Road be upgraded (including installing real time passenger information) in order to enhance the public transport links to the site. This would enable the bus service to efficiently use the site which would lead to an enhancement of the links between the site and the town centre (via the bus station). If minded to grant permission then the requested contributions could be considered to be acceptable having regard to the legal tests relating to planning obligations as they would be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

7.37 Overall therefore in terms of the sequential approach officers are of

the view that the proposal fails the sequential test owing to the availability and suitability of the existing Waitrose store. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that this unit is either not available or not suitable for the use proposed. Paragraph 27 of the NPPF confirms that planning permission should be refused where the application fails to satisfy the sequential test.

Impact Assessment 7.38 Paragraph 26 of the NPPF advises that a retail proposal of 2,500m2

or less need not be accompanied by a retail impact assessment unless a locally set threshold has been established. In this instance the Council has suggested in draft Policy LP8 of the draft Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3that a 600m2 threshold should be applied. Officers consider that little weight can be given to this policy at this time. The 2,500m2 threshold is therefore considered applicable in this case and the proposed store (1,651m2) is below that threshold.

7.39 Notwithstanding the above, and presumably in response to the

previous refusal reasons, the applicant has submitted what officers would describe as a broad retail impact assessment. The assessment does not provide an analysis of the impact in monetary and percentage terms upon the turnover of the town centre or particular stores. It does though suggest, inter alia, that:

- The store would sell a restricted range of goods which would not impact on main grocers or independent food and convenience good retailers in the town centre; - Huntingdon town centre is currently healthy;

- The development will not impact upon the delivery of retail schemes at the HWAAP site nor the town centre; - “Like affects like” and therefore the impacts on main grocers in the town centre owing to Lidl’s business model will be limited; - There remains a need for a discount food retailer within the town.

7.40 The conclusions of the retail impact assessment are broadly accepted

although it is noted that Churchmanor Estates Limited and Manormaker have raised concerns about the viability of the Chequers Court redevelopment should Lidl go ahead. Whilst it is suggested that Waitrose could experience a diversion of trade (and thus impact upon its viability) officers consider that the two stores (Waitrose and Lidl) are at opposite ends of the food retail sector. The diversion of trade must therefore be considered on this basis.

7.41 The Town Partnership raises similar concerns in relation to retail

development outside of the town centre. There have though been no further objections from existing traders.

7.42 There is an element of risk involved in reaching a conclusion in

relation to the impact – particularly given the prevailing economic conditions at this time which have reduced available expenditure in food retailing. That said it is accepted that there is a longstanding aspiration and qualitative need for a discount food retailer within the town. Some supporters of the application have advised that they are visiting the Lidl in St Neots in order to undertake such a shop at the moment.

7.43 Officers therefore conclude that this type of food retailer is unlikely to

create conditions which would result in a significant adverse impact – a level of impact which has to be evident in order for planning permission to be refused (as set out in paragraph 27 of the NPPF). It is though important, should permission be granted, that planning conditions are imposed on any permission in order to seek to control the nature of the use as a different type of food retailer could create different impacts. Possible conditions could restrict the number of lines sold within the store to 1,600, the nature of goods sold (restricting facilities such as a bakery, post office, pharmacy and butchers) and the amount of comparison goods (perhaps 15% of the net floorspace).

7.44 It should also be noted that the proposal is anticipated to create up to

40 jobs (a mixture of full and part time positions). This is an economic benefit arising from the application and according to paragraph 19 of the NPPF significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth. This would therefore be a positive impact arising from the development with construction jobs boosting this further.

7.45 It is acknowledged that the Council, back in July 2005, produced an

Urban Design Framework for this area which identified the potential for residential development at the application site. Draft allocation HU5 also suggests that the site could be redeveloped for residential use. The Design Framework document was intended to guide development at that time and, despite the draft allocation (which can only be given limited weight at this time, the site is not allocated for residential use so it cannot be concluded that a retail use would be contrary to any land allocation within the development plan.

7.46 Therefore in relation to the principle of retail development at this site

the proposal is assessed by officers as being in conflict with Policy S2 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 given that it is less accessible by foot, cycle and public transport than the existing Waitrose store; there is also conflict with Policies CS1 and CS8 of the Core Strategy 2009, and draft Policies LP8 and LP20 of the Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3 together with the NPPF in that the applicants have failed to demonstrate that the existing Waitrose store is not available nor suitable to meet the identified need. Whilst the site could be made more accessible by a choice of means of transport and would, subject to securing improvements through a Section 106 agreement, provide linkage into the town centre these measures do not outweigh the failure to pass the sequential test which remains at the heart of planning for town centre developments. Paragraph 27 of the NPPF confirms that the failure to satisfy the sequential approach should lead to the application being refused permission.

The principle of development (Residential) 7.47 The acceptability of residential development on this site has been

previously accepted with the larger flatted scheme. The site falls within the limits of the town and as such residential development can be supported having regard to Policies CS1 and CS3 of the Core Strategy together with draft Policies LP1 and LP8 of the Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3. Other considerations regarding the acceptability of residential development are discussed below.

7.48 The residential development part of this application is described as

being for social rent – thus affordable housing. The applicants have advised that they would submit a Unilateral Undertaking which would confirm their commitment to that. However there is no development plan policy requirement to provide affordable housing on this site (draft Policy LP25 would require this but only limited weight can be given to this at this time) as it falls below the threshold (both in terms of the number of dwellings and the size of the site) whereby a proportion of the housing would need to be affordable.

7.49 It is also noted that the entire site is suggested as being a residential

allocation for some 70 dwellings within the draft Local Plan 2036 (Site HU5). However given the very early stage of this document only little weight can be given to it. The adopted Urban Design Framework for the site is considered to have been overtaken by events (it dates from July 2005) and of relevance to a fully residential development of the area which has been partly delivered to the north of the site. Nonetheless the proposal would introduce a smaller element of residential development in a form/scale which is broadly in line with the Framework.

7.50 Notwithstanding these matters the proposal for residential

development at this site remains acceptable for the reasons set out above.

Highway and Parking 7.51 The Town Council have objected to the proposal on highway

grounds. The application though does not attract any objection from

the County Highway Authority. There are two vehicular accesses proposed on to Stukeley Road – one to serve the proposed foodstore and one to serve the 14 apartments. It is acknowledged by Officers that this area of Stukeley Road already contains measures to control the flow of vehicles and allow pedestrians to cross. The latter is considered to be of benefit to the proposal in that it would aid to facilitate safe access to the site from the north.

7.52 Whilst this may complicate the use of the proposed vehicular

accesses the County Council do not consider that this would make their use unacceptable in safety terms or in relation to maintaining the flow of traffic on this important route.

7.53 The submitted Transport Assessment includes an assessment of

parking demand at discount food retail stores. This suggests that the maximum use (which occurs on a Saturday) would be in the order of 60 vehicles.

7.54 The proposed foodstore includes a total of 78 car parking spaces

(including 4 for disabled users and 3 spaces for parents with children). The Council’s previous car parking standards were contained within Appendix 1 of the DPD: Proposed Submission 2010. If that basis were applied to the size of the store then a maximum of 118 spaces could be provided (of which 7 should be for mobility impaired users). With the exception of the mobility impaired spaces the targets are expressed in maxima and therefore the overall number would be in accordance with the previous guidance. The mobility impaired spaces would though be under-supplied by 3 spaces. In the absence of any accepted justification regarding the level of mobility impaired spaces it is suggested that should the application be supported the car park layout could be amended by condition to provide these additional spaces.

7.55 Given the proposed improvements to public transport accessibility,

the information provided by the applicants regarding similar stores and the extent of existing and planned residential properties within walking and cycling distance of the proposed store it is considered that sufficient car parking is provided overall.

7.56 In terms of cycle parking the proposal is also under provided with 14

spaces proposed versus the 26 which would have been required by the appendix to the DPD: Proposed Submission. Again in the absence of any accepted justification for a lower amount of spaces and should the application be supported then a condition requiring full compliance with the Council’s standards would be required.

7.57 In terms of the residential development the proposed access is

considered to be appropriate and the proposal includes 1 car parking space per apartment and 28 cycle parking spaces. This is considered to an acceptable overall provision for this site.

7.58 Overall, and subject to suitable conditions, the proposed vehicular

access and overall provision of car parking is considered to be acceptable having regard to draft Policies LP17 and LP18 of the Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3.

Design and Landscaping 7.59 The proposed design of both the store and the indicative apartment

block has been the subject of pre-application discussions with Officers. The proposal is considered to represent a significant improvement when compared to the buildings currently on the site which jar with the newer, higher standard, properties to the north.

7.60 Although the site is adjacent to the Conservation Area it is separated

by the railway line and is not particularly visible. Notwithstanding this the proposal is considered to be an acceptable high quality of development which would certainly not detract from the character and appearance of the area.

7.61 The proposed store is of a modern design whilst also reflecting the

functions of the store. The service yard is situated to the west of the site furthest away from Stukeley Road.

7.62 The density of the proposed dwellings is considered to be appropriate

within this location and also reflective of the newer residential developments in the vicinity. The proposed residential units adequately respect the constraints in relation to the existing Walnut tree, noise from the railway line and air quality. The main amenity area provided for future occupiers is located away from the railway line and Stukeley Road and the outlook from the properties has similar regard to the railway line and the protected Walnut tree.

7.63 Officers are therefore are of the view that the level of development

proposed could be accommodated onto the site without any unacceptable impacts arising.

7.64 In relation to landscaping it is acknowledged that the store car park

could benefit from additional landscaping within the car park. However, on balance, the boundary provision is considered to be appropriate owing to the size of the car park and the location of the store which would screen some spaces from views from Stukeley Road. In coming to this conclusion Officers have been mindful of the existing site’s use and the urban character of the area. It is though necessary to secure a higher standard of public realm between the store and Stukeley Road in order to soften the appearance of the site. This would need to be the subject of a specific condition on the store proposal if permission were to be granted.

7.65 In relation to the residential part of the site the indicative plans show a

variety of landscaping across the site. Subject to enhancing the landscaping at the boundary of the store, in order to assist in screening the store service yard, it is considered that an appropriate landscaping scheme could be secured as part of any reserved matters submission.

Amenity 7.66 The proposal would clearly result in changes to the use of the site

and impacts would arise to the occupiers of neighbouring properties. 7.67 In order to mitigate the impacts the Council’s Environmental

Protection team suggest that conditions in relation to the details of the

noise generated by any proposed air handling plant be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. They also suggest that restricting the timing of deliveries to between 07:00 and 23:00 hours is necessary. The applicants have not submitted any noise information in relation to the impacts arising from the development of the foodstore and in the absence of this the suggested conditions would appear to be reasonable and necessary if permission were to be granted. The Environmental Protection team do not consider that restrictions to trading hours are required in this case.

7.68 The applicants have suggested that they would be content to require

a low fence being erected within the landscaped area to the north of the site in order to seek to mitigate the impact from car lights and activity within the car park. Given the location of the store in relation to those properties and the mitigation suggested the impact is considered to be acceptable in relation to this impact.

7.69 The impacts upon properties to the east are likely to be largely due to

the movements to and from the store vehicular access. It is acknowledged that the use would increase the level of movements from those currently experienced at the site however the road is already busy and vehicles regularly stop and re-start journeys owing to the presence of traffic lights. In light of this Officers do not consider that the additional impacts upon residential amenity would be at a level where permission could be refused on this ground.

7.70 With regard to future residents the conclusions of the submitted

report, which considers the noise impacts arising from the railway line, are considered to be acceptable by the Environmental Protection team and subject to conditions requiring minimum standards of noise protection being achieved the internal environment for future occupiers of the dwellings is considered to be of an acceptable standard.

7.71 In relation to outside amenity (garden) space it is acknowledged that

the enjoyment of that space faces constraints owing to the presence of the railway line, Stukeley Road and the service yard of the proposed store. However the spaces provided for communal use are exposed in the main to only one of those constraints and so the indicative layout is considered to be appropriate. It is also acknowledged that there are existing recreational areas very close to the site.

7.72 Overall therefore, whilst there are constraints and it is acknowledged

that the proposal would create some impacts upon the amenity of the occupiers of nearby properties, the proposal is not considered to create conditions which are such that permission could be refused on this ground.

Flood Risk 7.73 The application site is within Environment Agency flood zone 1 which

represents land at the lowest risk of flooding. An assessment is required owing to the size of the site. The Environment Agency raises no objection to the proposal. The Alconbury & Ellington Internal Drainage Board object to the proposal on the basis that an

assessment has not been submitted. Officers have questioned this response and requested further comments.

Other Considerations 7.74 In light of the comments provided by consultees it would be

necessary to attach conditions to any grant of planning permission in relation to the need to undertake archaeological investigations (given previous remains found in the vicinity of the site), land contamination (owing to the previous uses of the site), biodiversity (implementing the measures set out within the submission) and providing a scheme for additional fire hydrants.

Conclusion 7.75 As noted in the report the retail element of this scheme is considered

to turn on whether the proposal satisfies the sequential approach. In the view of officers there is increased certainty in relation to the town centre redevelopment taking place and, in turn, it is very likely that the Waitrose unit would become available within two years. Officers are not convinced that the existing Waitrose store would not be suitable for a discount convenience retailer and no viability assessment has been submitted. Accordingly the proposal fails the sequential test.

7.76 In relation to the proposed residential development this is considered

to be acceptable owing to the location of the site within the town. 7.77 In relation to highway matters the proposal if approved would require

conditions and a Section 106 agreement to ensure adequate provision of cycle and mobility impaired parking. The County Council have assessed the impacts of the vehicular accesses and they consider these to be acceptable. Officers, whilst acknowledging local concerns, have no evidence or reason to disagree with the County Council.

7.78 The proposed design and landscaping proposed for the store is

considered appropriate to this location. The details of the apartments would ultimately be dealt with through the submission of a reserved matters application if this application were to be approved, however the principle of the amount and broad scale of the apartments is considered to be appropriate.

7.79 The proposal would create some impacts upon the amenity of nearby

residents but these are not considered to be so significant as to warrant a refusal reason. Officers are satisfied, on the basis of the submitted indicative scheme, that the site could provide an acceptable level of amenity for future occupiers of the apartments.

7.80 In relation to flood risk the proposal is within the lowest area of

flooding and, subject to the Internal Drainage Board confirming their position, the development appears acceptable in this regard. Other matters (archaeology, land contamination, biodiversity and fire hydrants) are capable of being dealt with via planning conditions if permission were to be granted.

7.81 Overall the proposal requires a judgement to be reached. With regard

to retail matters the proposal fails the sequential test and as such is

contrary to the ‘town centre first’ ethos which runs through all levels of planning policy. Paragraph 27 of the NPPF confirms that this alone is sufficient to refuse planning permission. Therefore the benefits of providing a well designed store, new residential units and enhancing bus service provision, whilst welcomed do not tip the balance to make an otherwise unacceptable scheme acceptable.

8. RECOMMENDATION – that the District Council resolves that it

would, if it were the determining Authority, have REFUSED planning permission for the following reason:

The applicant has failed to provide an adequate and robust sequential

assessment and as such has failed to demonstrate that the proposal could not be located within Huntingdon Town Centre. The scheme benefits do not add sufficient weight to outweigh this conflict. The development is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy Policies CS1 and CS8, Policy S2 of the Local Plan and draft Policies LP1 and LP8 of the Draft Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Stage 3.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs. CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Mr Andy Brand Development Management Team Leader 01480 388490

PAP/M14HUNTINGDON TOWN COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMENTS:

15th NOVEMBER 2012

1200633OUT WESTDr Wendy Hurst, c/o Lidl UK GmBH, Lutterworth, Leics

Hybrid application comprising full planning permission for demolition of existing buildings and erection of Lidl foodstore with associated parking, servicing and construction of both access points. Outline application for the erection of 14 apartments (for social rent) which will be developed as phase 2 of construction of works - Land South of Fern Court, Stukeley Road, Huntingdon

Recommend REFUSAL. The Panel considers that the development will give rise to increased vehicular movements both accessing and egressing the site and that the highways infrastructure at this location is not capable of accomodating this, which causes concern for safety.

Amendment 19 July 2012 - Additional drainage details received. Amendment 18/10/2012 - Further retail information received Amendment received 31/10/2012-Revised/updated Transport Assessment received correcting floorspace figures. Plans also corrected

19th July 2012. Additional draiainge details were noted. The Panel's original comments remain unchanged. 18th October 2012. Further retail information received was noted.The Panel's original comments remain unchanged. 15th November 2012 - The revised transport assessment and plan corrections were noted by the Panel.1201085LBC WESTMr Norzil Islam, 54 Ermine Street, Huntingdon PE29 3EZ

Insertion of fourteen cased box sash windows of varous styles - 54 Ermine Street, Huntingdon PE29 3EZ

Recommend APPROVAL

15/11/2012 Amended description to insertion of fifteen cased box sash windows of various styles.

15th November 2012 - Amendment description to insertion of fifteen cased box sash windows of various styles was noted by the Panel.1201366FUL EASTHuntingdon Boat Club, Riverside Gardens, Huntingdon PE29 3RP

Erection of first floor balcony - Huntingdon Boat Club, Hartford Road, Huntingdon

Recommend APPROVAL. The proposed development will improve the amenity and is in keeping with the style and character of the existing building.

Development Management Panel

o © Crown copyright and database rights 2013 Ordnance Survey HDC 100022322

1:5,000Scale = Date Created: 28/02/2013

Application ref: 1200633OUTLocation: Huntingdon

!

LegendThe SiteConservation Area

Development Management Panel

o © Crown copyright and database rights 2013 Ordnance Survey HDC 100022322

1:2,500Scale = Date Created: 23/05/2013

LegendThe SiteConservation AreaListed Buildings

Application ref:1200633OUTLocation: Huntingdon

~ -- "' - ~-~-------

--- ... --.. --.. -----

---," ~," ~, ~ __ ,./'

", ~--' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' '

'

' ' ' '

' '

' ' f

/

/ /

/

' '

' '

'

' ' ' '

/

' ' '

' '

,' ,'

' '

'

\

' /

,·-''

/ ,'

'

/ /

/ /

/ ,'

'

/

' '

/

'

' ' ' '

/

' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' '

/ /

' '

' ,'

/ /

/ ' '

'

' ,'

/

' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' '

' '

/

' ' ',

' ' /

'

'

' ' ' '

' ' ' ' '

' ' '

' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' ' ' ' l ' ' '

' '

/

/

,' ' '

/

' '

," ," '

' ' ' '

PLAN1\NG 10 8E CARRIEO OIJ1 IN LPA OWNERSr\IP

' ' '

I /

I I

/

/

I I

/ I

I

I

I /

I

/

/ /

/ I

I

I

I /

I

under construction

I I

/

CO'\/EREO CYCLE PARKING 28 SPACES

PROPOSEO RESIOEN11AL REOEVELOPMEN1 . ---~ ~41JNI1S

;, f '

I ' / '

I '-/ ' '

' ' ' ' ' '

N01E·. ALL SPACES ALONG

' '

5.0M-WIOE ACCESS ROAO 10 8E NO LESS 1r\AN 2.7M WIOE

' '

t=rL = ~3.ooo

TURNING HEAD

Gate --'>----, --------------~ ' ' '

' ' '

' ' /

COVEREO CYCLE PARKING

~4 SPACES

f I •

.. .. , •

i •

Gate "'.. "'..

ACCESS ROAO 10 8E S1RIJC1E0 10

AOOP1 A8LE S1 ANOAROS I I

t, I I

I THlS DR•w•NG ts coP'ffitcHT. ,No REM"'Ns THE PROf'ERT< OF

I HUMPHREYS TEI><L P'p;NERSHlP. l1 MUS'f NOT BE REPR()OUCEO

FDRM tNWHOLEDRtNPM<T , W1'fHOUTPRtORWRIT'fEN

I USED, QtSCLOSED OR wN<SMt'f'fEO TO ;HtRD p""'[lES lN 'NV

, pe.RMISSION·

11 --~~--00 NOT SCP..\£1 'LL QtMENSlONS sHOULD BE cHECKED oN sl1E BEFORE

'JIJORI<. COMMEf'ICES

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --.--J.--L--------_,__1.-----1 I I I I sc~~e.__;s \f-~-\-: -l',r-+-', --1\-1---+\--'\l--+', --1\r-+-', -t-+-+1 ~ I I I I • , " " ~

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I

'

'

' '

' ' '

'( 22 .10.12 GIA~odGEAu¢ated "f.. 22 os.n. FloOr p1an updated W i U.l6 12 f\OOr Plan Updated v 05.04.12 ""'""" """'"~ '"'''"' lO '"""'' "''""'"'

development U 260312 FFl'- MU T 01 02.12 P""' "d , •• "'""m"'"'· ,,oo 04- to lldl \OC MU s 06.02.12 Olenodde<l tc ,.•,es, .teP' to fE, f< """' •mended, MU

red llne changed , 2m pl;l.OIInQ z011e r.\"!I:J'WO to fear, C()Odensors mo<Jed. "O\o sttll"e re~.aeated . C'Jcle reci(S

i1'\CJea!!Cd R 12.01 .12 Slu~ emended, d\rl'l& {~ Q 09.01 \2 E,tm"" to '""'""' ,ge '"""""' ' •• toolo<1'1

updated, \idl layout ameneded P 20<>;11 ""'•"" ~""""' •m•"""' to •""' "'"'''~ · Path

seiOIJt IJPdated to match.

N ()9 .09.11 2 nO. statf pal'ot\nQ ~pli0El6 omitted M 01.09 11 H«l\te addeO<o "'""''~· ,..oe~"l ,.,oog addOd , MU

radhJS to r~enUa\ tum a.menoed L o,.oa 11 ''"' ,,~.- "'""" "972 m•""· ""' am.odOd MU

to SUit 1(. 29.07 - ~ \ Floor p~ans notes rerna.oed J 29 QT . 11 R""'"'" flOO' ptoo "'d~ed, FE <O~"""""' '

pa(ldrog ba')'$ altered 1 19.0711 lidll\OOfP\<IIlupelated H 13 07 _ 11 E)(amp\e \<lyQ\lt .. areas shoW!'\ G Q6.01 .1\ -rracl(ln~ added. - umt altered

F 070711 I added

E o7 ont 0 20.0611 G 26.05.\1 13 1'3.05.11 A 21 .04-11

amended

MU MU MU MU MU MU MU MU MU

humphreYs ~.....~, t.ea\ partnersnip

priol)f pari< \.odge Aberford

\.eeds LS25 3Df

T'.(Q\\3) 281 202<l

f :l01 '1 3) 281 '3232 W. W'fiW .hUfOPI'Ife)'S\ea\.COfO

E·. archit.eds@hurnPhre)'steaLCOm

chen\

Lid\ UK GmbH

project

Stu\<.eley Road Huntingdon

drawing tttle

Proposed Site Plan

date

status

July 2010 Prelimina~ Issue

1250@ A1 l\11 U cnecl<ed

scale

drawn

PH

iOb no. 952 dW9 no. 25 rev . Y

PROPOSED NORTHEAST ELEVATION

I I · II ! I

'

II

!

II II

II 'I I i !! II .· ' . I . I

I If !I I I'

I . ,,

'I tl I I ' I I

II II I

I.

I

I I

,, I

·II I I I

"

I I I I ,, I ,. ······

'; I ' !!

I II

·II ~~

II . I !I II I I 1/ I

II I ' II I I

' ! J I I I, !I II ' ! I .. ' i: ; II

'!i I I I •' ' .. I ::

-~-.. - -,- I ·' .L--, J ••

I .. .'·

I I I •..... I I

PROPOSED SOUTHEAST ELEVATION

0

--------

;:;

PROPOSED SOUTHWEST ELEVATION

Ill ! ' 'I 'I li I II I I: I,

I 'I 'I II

'

il .I I

I I, I I li II

._- :! ! II " I!

,I l1 II I! II rl ·. II

II I ~ II I

I i I I' I

II II I .

I ! II i ,, I

•. II I I

:I I . I I I . ,, "

1. Powder coated aluminium framed entrance lobby with glazed doors, side screens and spandrel panels above doors Colour: Blue Ral Ref: 501 0

2. Powder coated aluminium windows Colour: Blue Ral Ref: 5010

3. Eaves, soffits and gutter fascia pannelling to be 4mm thick Alucabond Colour: Silver Ral Ref 9006

4. Pre finished aluminium raised seam cladded roof. Colour: Silver Ral Ref 9006

5. Rendered wall panels Colour: White Ral Ref: 9010

6. Rendered pier Colour: Grey Ral Ref: 7038

7. Rendered Plinth Colour: Grey Ral Ref 7038

8. Powder coated steel Door Colour: Agate Ral Ref 7038 (Internal colour Blue 5010)

OEU\/ERY RAMP

I ,,

9. Service facility roller shutter Colour: Blue Ral Ref: 5010

10. Aluminium downpipes

11' Powder coated aluminium louvre Colour: Silver Ral Ref: 9006

12. Square section powder coated steel canopy support Colour: Agate Ral Ref: 7038

13. Internally illuminated Lidl signage

14. Stainless Steel Trolley park rails

15. Stainless Steel security bollards

16. Stainless steel poster display unit

17. Stainless steel Column Protection

THIS DRAWING IS CQ,=>YRIGHT, AND REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF HUMPH REYS TEP.L PARTNERSHIP. IT r.t UST NOT BE REPRODUCED,

USED, DISCLOSED OR TRANS MITTED TO THIRD PARTIES IN ANY f0R1JI, IN '.\'HOLE OR lt-J PART. WITI·IOUT PRIOR WRITTEN

PERMI SSION

00 NOT SCALE I AL L DIMENSIONS SHOULD 8E CHECK O:D ON SIT E BEFORE

WORK COMMENCES

I I I

D 10.07.12 Ro,.>;~r doors moved. coonopy allercd MU C 07 .02 .12 Bo llard to N ::O realigned. d :Jwn f; ipes repos;t ioned. Ral MU

rers added , Ram ,:JS to FE rout e shcw·n B 09.01 .12 Bil :~ery remm•ed. wareh011~e widened. (.'!n::~py altered MU A 28.07 .11 Enlronoc pcd <Jmcnded. cl<Jdding ever baker1 MU

amended, rendered !C'cade, bottards centred

j Rev.j D<Jte I Description j 0 13\'in j

humphreys teal partnership , 1 !.~\

architects Priory Park Lodge

Aberford Leeds

LS25 3DF

T<(0113)281 2020

F:(0113) 281 3232 W· WI/IIN_humphreysteaLcom

E: architects@humphreysteal.com

client

Lidl UK GmbH

project

Stukeley Road Huntingdon

drawing title

Proposed Lidl Elevations

date July 2011 status Planning Issue scale 1:100@A1 drawn MU checked

job no. 952 dwg no. 27 rev. D

PROPOSED ELEVATION A

·-

PROPOSED ELEVATION B

PROPOSED ELEVATION C

PROPOSED ELEVATION D

THIS DRAWI NG IS COPYRIGHT AND RE MAINS THE PROPERT Y OF HUMPHREYS TEAL PARTNERSHIP IT MUST NCT BE REPRODUCED

USED DISCLOSED OR TRANSMITTED TOTHIRC PARTIES IN ANY FORM, IN WHOLE OR IN PIIR r WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN

PERMISSION

DO NOT SCALE I AL L DIMEN SIONS SHOULD BE CH :O:CKED ON SITE B :O: FORE

WOR K COMMENCE S

1. Powder coated aluminium glazed doors Colour. Grey

2 Powder coated aluminium windows Colour: Grey

3 Fascia to be powder coated steel Colour: Grey

4 Pre finished aluminium ra1sed seam cladded roof Colour. Silver

5.

Ral Ref: 9006

Facing Brick wall panels Colour. Buff Bnck Ref lbstock Ivanhoe

6. Feature Rainscreen cladding Colour· Grey/Blue

7. Powder coated steel downpipes

8. Juliette Balconies

9. Feature brick soldier course Colour: Blue

A 30 08 11 8 alcon1es added ramsc reen cladc1ng added roo! MU <Jdded

[ Rev f Date I Oescr,pt1cn [ Dra1111 I

humphreys teal partnership

a rcilJte c ts Pr1ory Park Lodge

Aberford Leeds

LS25 3DF

T (0113) 281 2020 F (0113) 281 3232

W www humphreysteal com E archltects@humphreysteal com

client

Lidl UK GmbH

projeCt

Stukeley Road Huntingdon

drawmg t1tle

Proposed Residential Elevations

date July 2011 status Preliminary Issue

scale 1:100@ A1 drawn MU checked PH

JOb no 952 dwg no 30 rev A

GREEN PAPERS FOLLOW

•.

Application Number: 1001467FUL

TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1990

REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION

Lidl UK Gmbh (FAO Dr W Hurst) Wellington Parkway Magna Park Lutterworth Leicestershire LE174XW

Huntingdonshire District Council in pursuance of powers under the above Act, hereby REFUSE TO PERMIT

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of new Lidl neighbourhood foodstore with associated parking and access arrangement at Land South Of Sovereign Bus And Coach Company Stukeley Road Huntingdon

in accordance with your application received on 6th September 2010 and plans (listed below) which f h orm part of t e application Plan Type Reference Version Date Received Access Details SCP/1 0038/003 04.10.2010 Site location Plan 06.09.2010 Landscaping 10-57-02 B 06.09.2010 Site Plan 21 c 06.09.2010 Elevations 22 c 06.09.2010 General 23 A 06.09.2010 topoQraphical survey 5078 06.09.2010

1. Reason. The applicant has failed to provide an adequate and robust sequential assessment and as such has failed to demonstrate why the proposal cannot be located within the town centre, or that the development proposed would not have an adverse impact on planned retail development within Huntingdon Town Centre and Huntingdon West, contrary to PPS4, CS8 and P4.

2. Reason. The proposed development by virtue of its siting, design, layout and landscaping fails to represent a high quality designed scheme that enhances the appearance of the area, resulting in a bulky, uninspiring development that projects beyond the built form, such that the scheme will be over dominant when viewed from the adjacent formal open space to its detriment and visually harmful to the townscape and is located in close proximity to the adjacent footway/cycleway such that the proposal will be detrimental to the openness and natural surveillance required for a well

Planni~~nager (Development Management) ufm2.rtf Date 17th November 2010

Pathfinder House, St Mary's Street Huntingdon. PE29 3TN mail@huntsdc.9ov.uk DX140316 Huntingdon SC

Page 1 of 3 ,.,.·' '""'" ~;;",....,..-'·t):;;~~ ~

Huntingdonshire DISTaiCT COUNCIL

Tel: 01480 388388 Fax: 01480 388099

www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk

-.--

used footway/cycleway. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to policy ENV7 of the Regional Spatial Strategy 2008, policies E8, S2, T19, En25 and En27 of the Local Plan 1995, policies E1, E2 and E7 of the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010.

3. Reason. The proposed development by virtue of its proximity, bulk, massing and layout will result in overshadowing to the adjacent residential block, a loss of outlook afforded to these properties and an unreasonable level of disturbance resulting from early morning/late night deliveries, such that cumulatively the proposed development will result in an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity afforded to the adjacent residential properties, contrary to policies H30, H31 and S2 of the Local Plan 1995, policies E1 and H7 of the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010.

4. Reason. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there would be no detrimental harm to the health and longevity of the TPO Walnut Tree on site, which by virtue of the species is highly vulnerable to disturbance, contrary to policy En18 of the Local Plan 1995 and policy E5 of the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010.

~~ Planning Service Manager (Development Management) ufm2.rtf Date 17th November 2010

Pathfinder House, St Mary's Street Huntingdon. PE29 3TN mail@huntsdc.gov.uk DX140316 Huntingdon SC

Page 2 of 3 .-· lUQr

Huntingdonshire ;;;; ., .

DIStRICt COUNCIL

Tel: 01480 388388 Fax: 01480 388099

www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk

3'· S(ct) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL

AGENDA ITEM NO.

15 NOVEMBER 2010

Case No:

Proposal:

Location:

Applicant:

Grid Ref:

1001467FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)

DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF NEW LIDL NEIGHBOURHOOD FOODSTORE WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND ACCESS ARRANGEMENT

LAND SOUTH OF SOVEREIGN BUS AND COACH COMPANY STUKELEY ROAD

LIDL UK GMBH (FAO DR W HURSn

523322 272445

Date of Registration: 06.09.2010

Parish: HUNTINGDON

RECOMMENDATION- REFUSE

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The site at present comprises a nursery and a number of residential properties which vary from single storey to two storeys in height. On the site lies a walnut tree which is in the grounds of No. 3 Stukeley Road and protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The site fronts on to Stukeley Road and to the rear of the site lies the existing area of open space, known as Stanton Butts. To the east of the site lies the elevated East Coast main line railway.

1.2 Unlike previous applications that have sought to re-develop this area, this application excludes the Aida Motors site fronting Stukeley Road, adjacent to the railway access point and the embankment to the line itself.

1.3 This application seeks consent for the demolition of all buildings on site and the erection of a Lidl Neighbourhood Store comprising 1405m2 of floor area, formed in a building of approximately 56m x 30m x 9m (greatest measurements), alongside associated access and parking arrangements for 70 cars and 14 cycle spaces.

1.4 The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement, a Lidl Case Study and Executive Summary, an Arboricultural Impact Assessment, a Ground Investigation Report, a Flood Risk Assessment, a Transport Assessment and an Interim Travel Plan.

2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE

2.1 PPS1: "Delivering Sustainable Development" (2005) contains advice on the operation of the plan-led system

----·-------------

2.2 PPS4: "Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth" (2009) sets out the Government's comprehensive policy framework for planning for sustainable economic development in urban and rural areas.

2.3 PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment (2010) sets out the Government's planning policies on the conservation of the historic environment.

2.4 PPS9: "Biological and Geological Conservation" (2005) sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system.

2.5 PPG13: "Transport" (2001) provides guidance in relation to transport and particularly the integration of planning and transport.

2.6 PPS23: "Planning and Pollution Control" (2004) is intended to complement the new pollution control framework under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and the PPC Regulations 2000.

2.7 PPG24: "Planning & Noise" (1994) guides planning authorities on the use of planning powers to minimise the adverse impact of noise.

2.8 PPS25: "Development and Flood Risk" (revised 2010) sets out Government policy on development and flood risk. Its aims are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas of highest risk. Where new development is, exceptionally, necessary in such areas, policy aims to make it safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, reducing flood risk overall.

For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.

3. PLANNING POLICIES

Further information on the role of planning policies in deciding planning applications can also be found at the following website: http://www.communities.gov.uk then follow links Planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Information and Guidance, Planning Guidance and Advice and then Creating and Better Place to Live

3.1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003)

Saved policies from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 are relevant and viewable at http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk follow the links to environment, planning, planning policy and Structure Plan 2003.

• P6/1: "Development Related Provision" - development will only be permitted where the additional infrastructure and community requirements generated by the proposal can be secured.

• P9/8: "Infrastructure Provision" - a comprehensive approach towards securing infrastructure needs to support the development strategy for the Cambridge Sub-Region. The programme will encompass: transport; affordable and key worker housing; education; health care; other community facilities; environmental improvements and provision of open space; waste management; water, flood control and drainage and other utilities and telecommunications.

3.2 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995)

Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.qov.uk/localplan95

• H30: "Existing Residential Areas" - Planning permission will not normally be granted for the introduction of, or extension to, commercial uses or activities within existing residential areas where this would be likely to have a detrimental effect on amenities.

• H31: "Residential privacy and amenity standards" - Indicates that new dwellings will only be permitted where appropriate standards of privacy can be maintained and adequate parking provided.

• E8: "Small Scale Employment Generating Development" - will normally be permitted within defined environmental limits, subject to: demonstrated employment need; likely impact on character, amenities and infrastructure.

• 52: "Individual Shopping Proposals" - need to be satisfactory in terms of siting, design, car parking, servicing, accessibility by car, foot, cycle and public transport, environmental impact, conservation, alternative use of the land and any other relevant Local Plan policies.

• 516: "Local Shopping Facilities" - proposals for new shops or the partial conversion of existing buildings or dwellings within existing built up areas or in the villages will be considered on their individual merits.

• T18: "Access requirements for new development" states development should be accessed by a highway of acceptable design and appropriate construction.

• T19 "Pedestrian Routes and Footpath" - new developments are required to provide safe and convenient pedestrian routes having due regard to existing and planned footpath routes in the area.

• EnS: "Conservation Area Character" - development within or directly affecting conservation areas will be required to preserve or enhance their character and appearance.

• En6: "Design standards in Conservation Areas" - in conservation areas, the District Council will require high standards of design with careful consideration being given to the scale and form of

development in the area and to the use of sympathetic materials of appropriate colour and texture.

• En18: "Protection of countryside features" - Offers protection for important site features including trees, woodlands, hedges and meadowland.

• En19: "Trees and Landscape" - will make Tree Preservation Orders where it considers that trees which contribute to the local amenity and/or the landscape are at risk.

• En20: Landscaping Scheme. - Wherever appropriate a development will be subject to the conditions requiring the execution of a landscaping scheme.

• En24: "Access for the disabled" - prov1s1on of access for the disabled will be encouraged in new development

• En25: "General Design Criteria" - indicates that the District Council will expect new development to respect the scale, form, materials and design of established buildings in the locality and make adequate provision for landscaping and amenity areas.

• En27: "Shopfront design" - Council will seek good standards of shopfront design by having regard to the character of the building and the street scene to which it relates

• CS8: "Water'' - satisfactory arrangements for the availability of water supply, sewerage and sewage disposal facilities, surface water run-off facilities and provision for land drainage will be required.

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002)

Saved policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.qov.uk/localplan - then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)

None relevant

3.4 Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Adopted Core Strategy 2009

Policies from the Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2009 are relevant and viewable at http://www.huntsdc.gov.uk click on Environment and Planning then click on Planning then click on Planning Policy and then click on Core Strategy where there is a link to the Adopted Core Strategy.

• CS1: "Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire" - all developments will contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development, having regard to social, environmental and economic issues. All aspects will be considered including design, implementation and function of development.

• CS3: "The Settlement Hierarchy" - Identifies Huntingdon, St Neots, St lves and Ramsey and Bury as Market Towns in which development schemes of all scales may be appropriate in built up areas.

• CSB: "Land for Retail Development" - at least 20,000m2 of comparison floorspace and 4,000m2 of convenience floorspace will be provided before 2026 within defined areas including:

9,000m2 of comparison floorspace in Huntingdon, concentrated within the town centre, but offering complementary and appropriate development to the West of town centre and 4,000 of convenience floorspace across the District to serve the population growth.

• CS10: "Contributions to Infrastructure Requirements" - proposals will be expected to provide or contribute towards the cost of providing infrastructure and of meeting social and environmental requirements, where these are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

3.5 Development Management DPD Submission 2010

Policies from the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010 are relevant.

• C1: "Sustainable Design" - development proposals should take account of the predicted impact of climate change over the expected lifetime of the development.

• C2: "Carbon Dioxide Reductions" - major development proposals will include renewable or low carbon energy generating technologies. These should have energy generating capacity equivalent to 10% of the predicted total C02 emissions of the proposal.

• C5: "Flood Risk and Water Management" -development proposals should include suitable flood protection I mitigation to not increase risk of flooding elsewhere. Sustainable drainage systems should be used where technically feasible. There should be no adverse impact on or risk to quantity or quality of water resources.

• E1: "Development Context" - development proposals shall demonstrate consideration of the character and appearance of the surrounding environment and the potential impact of the proposal.

• E2: "Built-up Areas" -development will be limited to within the built­up areas of the settlements identified in Core Strategy policy CS3, in order to protect the surrounding countryside and to promote wider sustainability objectives.

• E3: "Heritage Assets" - proposals which affect the District's heritage assets or their setting should demonstrate how these assets will be protected, conserved and where appropriate enhanced.

• ES: "Tree, Woodland and Hedgerows" - proposals shall avoid the loss of, and minimise the risk of, harm to trees, woodland or hedgerows of visual, historic or nature conservation value, including ancient woodland and veteran trees. They should wherever possible be incorporated effectively within the landscape elements of the scheme.

• E7: "Protection of Open Space" - development proposals should not result in harm to spaces which; contribute to the distinctive fonm, character and setting of a settlement; create a focal point within the built up area; provide a setting for important buildings or scheduled ancient monuments; or fonm part of an area of value for wildlife, sport or recreation, including areas forming part of a 'green corridor'.

• EB: "Sustainable Travel" - proposals must demonstrate how the scheme maximises opportunities for the use of sustainable travel modes, particularly walking, cycling and public transport.

• E9: "Travel Planning" - To maximise opportunities for the use of sustainable modes of travel, development proposals should make appropriate contributions towards improvements in transport infrastructure, particularly to facilitate walking, cycling and public transport use. Proposals should not give rise to traffic volumes that exceed the capacity of the local or strategic transport network, nor cause harm to the character of the surrounding area.

• E10: "Parking Provision"- car and cycle parking should accord with the levels and layout requirements set out in Appendix 1 'Parking Provision'. Adequate vehicle and cycle parking facilities shall be provided to serve the needs of the development.

• H7: "Amenity" -development proposals should safeguard the living conditions for residents and people occupying adjoining or nearby properties.

• P4: "Town Centre Uses and Retail Designations" - proposals for retail, leisure, office, cultural and tourism facilities and other main town centre uses should be located within the defined town centres of the Market Towns, unless they accord with exceptions allowed for elsewhere in the LDF.

• PS: "Local Shopping and Services" - seeks to support the provision of local shopping and other town centre uses as defined in PPS4, within existing built up areas of Key Service Centres, Smaller Settlements and predominantly neighbourhood centres of Market Towns, subject to environmental, safety and amenity considerations where it can be demonstrated that the proposal is directly related to the role and function of the locality; contributes towards the

provision of a safe environment and would enhance the existing provision.

• 02: "Transport Contributions" - contributions will be required towards improvements in transport infrastructure where necessary to mitigate the impact of new development on local transport networks, particularly to facilitate walking, cycling and public transport use.

3.6 Supplementary Planning Guidance/ Documents

Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2007)

Huntingdon West Area Action Plan Proposed Submission 2009 - Currently awaiting an Inspectors decision following the EIP

West of Stukeley Road Urban Design Framework (2005)

4 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 0800979FUL - Erection of 68 apartments - withdrawn

The adjacent site to the north, the Sovereign Bus and Coach Company was granted outline consent in 2004 and then Reserved Matters approved in 2007 for 18 dwellings. This included the provision of a footpath and cycle link across the site, development substantially complete.

Planning permission has also been granted for the construction of an alternative access to the development to the north (Sovereign Bus and Coach Company), application number 0801016FUL - (Copy of plans attached)

0802057FUL - full planning application for the erection of 68 apartmel")ts with ancillary access and parking arrangements. Members resolved to grant planning permission in December 2008 subject to the completion of the S 1 06 Agreement. The Agreement has not been finalised as of yet.

0901399FUL - variation of the earlier permission to allow changes to the scheme and an increase in the number of dwelling from 18-21 across the site.

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Huntingdon Town Council- recommend APPROVAL (copy attached)

5.2 Environment Agency- NO OBJECTION but due to insufficient information being contained within the Flood Risk Assessment, recommend that condition be attached pertaining to foul water drainage be attached if the application is approved.

5.3 Highways Authority - NO OBJECTION subject to conditions pertaining to the width of the footpath, provision of tactile paving, on site manoeuvring and surface water run off. Additionally, S106 contributions are sought in respect of the provision of Real Time Passenger Information at two bus stops, and the upgrading of those bus stops, alongside MTTS contributions.

5.4 CCC Archaeology- NO OBJECTION subject to a condition.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

ONE letter NO OBJECTION received from 26 Crummock Water, Huntingdon:-

• There should be adequate vehicular access and parking for customers and delivery vehicles. Due to the existing arrangement at the Tesco Express in Stukeley Meadows Wertheim Way becomes blocked an congested as a result of reversing lorries.

• Prefer a single storey building with a design that is somewhat better than a basic shed.

• There are two informal footpaths across the site at the moment, suggest one could be made permanent.

ONE letter expressing CONCERNS from 21 High Street, Brampton:-

• Concerned about the impact additional car traffic will have, on top of the Northbridge development on the Ermine Street traffic flow

ONE letter of OBJECTION from 2 Stukeley Road, Huntingdon:-

• The Lidl application on the ring road was refused due to traffic volume on a one-way system, however, Stukeley Road is a gridlock road both ways. The access is too near the traffic lights and pedestrian crossing, this could be a danger and traffic hazard.

• Traffic is already bad in this area and traffic build up is already excessive. T raffle is already directed from Spittals roundabout when an accident occurs.

• Sought permission for a bungalow in 1985 and was refused due to additional vehicles on the network. 25 years later traffic has increased considerably and the road hasn't changed.

• There are also concerns regarding the delivery times (not listed) involving noise from large lorries. This end of the road is too narrow and congested to take on this excess traffic which may hinder emergency services getting through.

TWO letters of SUPPORT from

2 Wastwater, Huntingdon:-

• Vast improvement to the area. • Welcome competitor for the Tesco Express.

105 Wertheim Way, Huntingdon:-

• Must needed competition for Tesco Express. • The new store could be expected to reduce the congestion on

Wertheim Way.

Town Centre Partnership -OBJECTION • Consider the proposal to be detrimental to the town centre. The

site is considered to be out of the town centre.

The applicant has forwarded copies of 64 letters of SUPPORT from local residents from a variety of locations across Huntingdonshire.

7. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

Background

7.1 The application site falls within the scope of the adopted West of Stukeley Road Urban Design Framework (UDF) adopted in July 2005. This UDF sought to 'lead the comprehensive development of land to the west of Stukeley Road'.

7.2 This framework recognises that the potential of the street is under exploited, particularly the close relationship with Stukeley Meadows (Stanton Butts), although at present there is no pedestrian access available. As part of any development a footway/cycleway shall be required linking Stukeley Meadows with Stukeley Road. The outline application and reserved matters application, 04028160UT and 0700318REM on the adjacent site seeks to provide a footway from the site to Stukeley Road. The Framework seeks to provide a single access for the comprehensive development of the overall site and that a residential development of the area to be the most favourable option for this site.

7.3 Regard must be given to the aims of the Development Plan, in the first instance, although regard must also be given to this document as a material planning consideration in the determination of this planning application.

7.4 The main issues in the consideration of this application are the principle of a retail development of this nature and scale in this location; the nature of the development; the scale of the development; the design of the development and impact on the character and appearance of the area and the adjacent Conservation Area; the impact on the adjacent listed building and its setting; the impact on residential amenity; the parking layout and landscaping; the impact on highway safety; the issues of contamination; the issue of archaeology; the issue of flood risk and S 1 06 contributions.

The principle of a retail development of this nature and scale in this location

7.5 The key retail planning policy issue in this case is whether the proposed site is a sustainable retail location in relation to national and local planning policy. National planning policy for retail uses is contained in PPS4 and the Core Strategy focuses new retail development within town centres.

7.6 For Huntingdon Town Centre, the Council has developed this Core Strategy policy commitment further, supported by up to date independent retail development advice (Roger Tym and Partners, March 2010), through the preparation of area specific retail focused redevelopment and regeneration strategies for the areas known as Huntingdon West and Chequers Court. This strategic planning approach complies with the former PPS6 and its replacement PPS4.

7.7 The Lidl proposal is on an "out of centre" site, some 650 metres walking distance from Huntingdon Town Centre. The proposed site stands alone amongst surrounding predominantly residential uses, and has been identified in the West of Stukeley Road Urban Design Framework as a site suitable for residential development.

7.8 It is considered that the proposal can be described as a Main Town Centre use in relation to PPS4 as its market is significantly broader than the neighbourhood and locality, suggested in the application description. The applicant contends that there are no alternative suitable or viable sites or premises available to accommodate the proposal within Huntingdonshire Town Centre.

7.9 The applicant's case is based on a partial and inaccurate sequential assessment as required by PPS4. Within its assessment the applicant claims that no sites or premises are currently available in the town centre, and that the Council faces significant impediments to the timely and successful implementation of its Huntingdon Town Centre redevelopment and regeneration strategy, including the timing and uncertainty of new development, the phasing of infrastructure provision and the physical capacity of the town centre. It argues that as these factors undermine the Council's strategy and the future availability of suitable sites or premises in the town centre and that consequently it is required to consider out of centre sites for its store.

7.1 0 The applicant has not provided any information on its sequential assessment of sites and premises in the town centre. The Council would expect the applicant to assess all opportunities for a town centre location before considering an edge of centre or out of centre location. The Roger Tym report highlights vacancies including the former M&S Simply Food store (High Street) and it is understood that there are several larger premises within the town centre on short term leases.

7.11 The applicant is misinformed on the view that the implementation of the Council's redevelopment and regeneration strategy is not being taken forward. The Council is acting positively on its retail advice and existing and emerging planning policy for Huntingdon Town Centre by bringing forward the implementation of new town centre redevelopment and regeneration proposals. Action in both the Chequers Court and the Huntingdon West areas is underway to support the delivery of a significantly improved town centre retail offer and an expanded range of comparison and convenience retail floorspace. For example applications for the re-development of land in the Town Centre owned by Sainsbury's and for the Huntingdon West retail led aspect as set out within the Huntingdon West Area Action Plan have been submitted and are now pending consideration.

7.12 The applicant contends that the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on Huntingdon Town Centre, by nature of its scale, range of goods to be sold, and ongoing viability of the town centre's existing convenience store offer. In essence the applicant argues that the location of this type of store, technically known as a Limited Assortment Discounter (LAD) has limited adverse impact on town centres.

-

7.13 It is considered that the location of a Lidl store outside of the town centre could have a significant adverse impact on the town centre when assessed against the following criteria of PPS4 Policy EC16:

o EC16.1 a: The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal.

o EC16.1b: The impact of the proposal on town centre viability and vitality, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer.

7.14 It is agreed, on the basis. of independent retail evidence, that there is a requirement for a discount retailer within Huntingdon Town Centre, that this could complement the existing range of convenience retailers within the centre, and indeed deliver a positive impact. Given the Council's strenuous efforts and actions to ensure the town centre's ongoing vitality, and viability and the consequent planned widening of choice of retail sites and premises within the town centre, it is not appropriate to consider alternative out of centre locations for this requirement.

7.15 It is particularly important that the proposal should not have a significant adverse impact on the implementation of the Council's strategy for redeveloping and regeneration the Chequers Court and Huntingdon West areas of the town centre.

7.16 It is considered that the applicant has prematurely ruled out the location of its proposed store within Huntingdon Town Centre on the basis of a partial and inaccurate sequential assessment of available, suitable and viable sites. The applicant has not provided a satisfactorily detailed analysis of potentially available sites and premises in the town centre, and its justification for ruling out town centre locations is based on a misunderstanding of the deliverability of major town centre redevelopment and regeneration proposals that the Council is promoting in Huntingdon. PPS4 Policy EC17.1 states:

Planning applications not in town centres should be refused where

o the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements the sequential approach (policy EC15); or

o there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts in terms of any one of impacts set out in policies EC10.2 and 16.1 (the impact assessment), taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments

7.17 The proposal fails on both the sequential approach and impact assessment requirements of this PPS4 policy and so should be refused.

7.18 Additionally, it is considered that the applicant has played down the significance of the adverse impacts of the proposal on the planned town centre redevelopment and regeneration proposals that are being brought forward in line with Policy CS8 and related policies, which are significant material considerations.

7.19 On the basis of the above assessment, it is considered that the applicant has failed to provide an adequate and robust sequential assessment and as such has failed to demonstrate why the proposal cannot be located within the town centre, or that the development proposed would not have an adverse impact on planned retail development within Huntingdon Town Centre and Huntingdon West, contrary to PPS4 and CSB.

The nature and scale of the development

7.20 The application site is located adjacent to a new residential development, fronts Stukeley Road and to the rear abuts Stanton Butts, which is established open space. The proposed development seeks to construct a building that extends beyond the rear building line of the adjacent residential development and projects into the defined open space.

7.21 Accordingly, regard must be given to the requirements of paragraph 5.15 of the Core Strategy and policy E2 of the Development Management DPD, which both set out the Council's definition of built-up area. The general thrusts of these extracts seek to preserve all land outside the built-up area. In this instance, Stanton Butts is a clearly defined area of open space that provides a green wedge between two parts of the Huntingdon settlement, thereby creating a softened edge to these urban parts of the settlement.

7.22 It could be argued that this open space does not form an edge to the settlement and as such is not defined as countryside, however, as formal open space, policy E7 must be applied. This policy seeks to ensure that no harm comes to spaces which create a focal point within the built up area, or form part of an area of value for wildlife, sport or recreation, including areas forming part of a green corridor.

7.23 The assessment of the acceptability of the proposal against both policy stances lies with the impact of the proposal on the open space.

7.24 The proposal extends approximately 21m beyond the rear building line of the adjacent residential properties and the existing rear most single storey dwelling on the site. It is noted that there is a dilapidated double garage and ad hoc parking area located in this rear most section of the site and historically it appears that this land formed part of the domestic curtilage to the reanmost bungalow, but that direct relationship appears to have been lost. The garage is low key in its scale and sits adjacent to a well established tree belt.

7.25 The building proposed extends to a height of 7.8m within approximately 4m of this rear boundary and within 2m of the north western boundary at this rearmost point. Design and landscaping issues are discussed below, however, setting these aside at this time, the presence of a building of this scale, bulk and siting in close proximity to the rear boundary, will result in a development that is highly prominent within this setting and out of keeping with the soft edge to the adjacent developments.

7.26 Whilst there is a desire to improve the aesthetics of this site, it is important to ensure that any replacement building adds to the character and openness of the site and enhances the green space beyond.

------···

7.27 This development fails to enhance this area and promotes a large bulky building that will be over dominant and detrimental to the visual appearance of this well used open space and projects beyond the built form of this part of Huntingdon, thereby resulting in a development that is visually harmful to the townscape.

The design of the development and impact on the character and appearance of the area and the adjacent Conservation Area;

7.28 The proposed building is of a footprint not uncommon for developments of this nature, in that it is of the footprint size required and purpose built block form, however, this form of development should not prevent the delivery of a high quality design and appropriate and attractive layout of a site, but does require innovative design solutions to overcome the massing of such a form.

7.29 In this instance the proposed building is set back some 34m from the main Stukeley Road frontage and flanked by residential properties to the north and Aida Garage to the south. The layout of the site presents a void in the streetscene by virtue of this set back, thus drawing the eye into the site as people pass the frontage.

7.30 As is typical of retail development, the frontage is dominated by hardsurfacing and car parking, on this basis, whilst not ideal and failing to provide a coherent urban street frontage, the set back is acceptable, subject to an appropriate high quality design and landscaping solution being obtained.

7.31 The front elevation of the store fails to promote an attractive visual impact within the streetscene. The focus of the building as you access the site is the bland delivery entrance, followed by a large expanse of repetitive glazing capped with metal louvre cladding. Finally, the eye is drawn to the main entrance of the store, which whilst marginally different to the remainder of the elevation, by the introduction of brick piers and an increase in the height at this point, it is not considered to represent high quality design, but a scheme that is no different to many other stores of this nature and is considered to be bland and uninspiring. Additionally, the front elevation is then obscured by an expanse of trolley parking and signage, resulting in a cluttered elevation that will seek to detract from the visual appearance of the site.

7.32 The poor layout of the site is further emphasised by the poor relationship between the proposal and the footpath to the north and the park to the west. Towards the footpath, the store presents a length of approximately 38m within 2-5.4m of the boundary of the site, with little alleviation, the applicant has endeavoured to break up the massing of this elevation with some low key piers, faux windows and a fire escape, however, the scheme fails to offer any activity or natural surveillance to this footpath. The adjacent residential scheme was specifically designed with large windows that address both the park to the rear and the footpath, providing an attractive and active outlook along this route. The length and tedium proposed by this elevation and its proximity to this footpath is considered to adversely affect the character of the area, and fails to enhance or assist in the provision of an attractive, naturally surveyed, wide and landscaped route. The siting of the delivery bay adjacent to this boundary only seeks to further detract from the aesthetics of this elevation.

7.33 A similar situation occurs in respect of the elevation facing towards Stanton Butts, in which an approximate length of 30m is located within approximately 3.5m of the boundary. This expanse of building offers two small security barred windows as alleviation to this bland fa9llde, which is highly visible within a well frequented open space.

7.34 The remaining elevation is of less concern due to its more isolated location, facing into the site and towards the railway line and is limited in its visibility from main public vantage points, albeit this elevation is similarly a long expanse that is bland and uninspiring and fails to represent high quality design. The elevation would benefit from some landscaping to soften its appearance.

7.35 The overall roof form of the building is potentially the only redeeming feature of this building. Three differing heights and expanse, offer a small amount of movement in the feel of the building, however, much of the impact of the roof form is lost when the building is considered as a whole.

7.36 Whilst the main principles of the proposed landscaping layout are discussed in more detail below, the landscaping is an intrinsic element to the design and layout aspirations of the site.

7.37 To the rear of the site the proposed landscaping and boundary treatment ( 1.8m weld mesh style fence) do nothing to assist in the aesthetics of this elevation. The landscaping is low key and whilst it does propose some trees they will fail to substantially obscure the building even when mature, in addition the fencing is harsh and uninspiring and seems to serve little purpose when considering its juxtaposition with the timber knee rail fronting the footpath, as this relationship would not prevent people from entering the site. The new housing adjacent has incorporated a timber post and rail fence with Photinia 'red robin' hedgeline within the site.

7.38 To the footpath, the knee rail is much more sympathetic to the need to provide an open and attractive environment, however, the landscaping is not considered to be sufficient to suitably mask the proposed elevation.

7.39 The scheme as currently proposed is considered to be of a poor design and the layout of the site does nothing to improve the visual appearance or massing of the building. The scheme incorporates bland and predominantly blank elevations that fail to interact with the adjacent public realms.

7.40 It is considered that the issues pertaining to design and layout can be readily overcome with the realignment of the building into a north-south horizontal position through the site, thereby hiding a large proportion of the building to the rear of the Aida Motors site, moving the delivery point to the rear of the building, introducing more activity in the main visible elevations and enliven the main entrance point and thereby allowing additional landscaping to the key boundaries.

7.41 At present the proposed development fails to have sufficient regard to its setting by virtue of its design and layout, resulting in a development that is detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality and that fails to preserve or enhance the views into or out of the adjacent conservation area.

The impact on the adjacent listed buildings and their setting

7.42 There are a number of listed buildings located towards the centre of Huntingdon, on the other side of the railway bridge. These buildings and their settings are not directly visible from the application site and as such it is not considered that there will be any harm to the historical value of either the buildings or their settings.

Residential amenity

7.43 The application site is located adjacent to a new residential development of 21 apartments which has been designed to have windows facing all boundaries of the site thereby enlivening the appearance of the development.

7.44 As a result of the design of this site, there are primary habitable room windows facing towards this application site at all levels. The building proposed is within 10-12m of these habitable room windows and located south of the properties, accordingly it is considered that there is likely to be a reasonable level of shadowing to the ground floor properties, even when having regard to the slight levels difference between the two sites (the application site being approximately 0.5m lower than the residential}, exacerbated by the tree planting adjacent to the boundary of the application site.

7.45 Similarly, this proximity between the residential and the store, when balanced with the shadowing that is likely to occur, will result in a loss of outlook from the ground floor properties· when they are faced with a bland elevation and delivery point.

7.46 Lastly, the proximity of the delivery point to the residential properties is considered to be problematic in planning terms, it is not considered that one delivery a day, as is indicated although not stated clearly within the application, will result in any statutory noise nuisance, however it is considered to impact upon residential amenity.

7.47 The layout of the site is such that deliveries will need to enter the car park in a forward gear and swing into the car park to enable them to reverse onto the unloading bay. Accordingly, the car park cannot be occupied in the central disabled parking area if the lorries wish to make this manoeuvre, as such the deliveries can only occur outside of the store opening hours which are proposed to be 0800-2100 Monday- Saturday, 1000-1600 on Sundays and 0800-2100 on Bank Holidays. Deliveries received in such close proximity to residential units before Sam and 1 Oam on Sundays is considered to be wholly unreasonable and would result in a loss of amenity to these properties.

7.48 Whilst individually the above factors may not warrant independent reasons for refusal, it is considered that cumulatively the impact on these adjacent ground floor flats will be such that there will be a detrimental loss of residential amenity.

Landscaping

7.49 Landscaping has been proposed to soften the site and to provide screening to the key boundaries, emphasised by the fact that most of the perimeter planting is proposed to be evergreen.

7.50 However, the relative narrowness of the screening belts (4m on the northwestern boundary and 3m of the southwestern boundary), coupled with the potential height of approximately 1-2m and the height of the proposed building and delivery lorries, will result in the planting having a minimal effect on reducing the adverse impact of the proposed development, as discussed above.

7.51 It is accepted that the inclusion of semi-mature trees in these belts will improve matters but the trees shown will take years to reach the canopy spread shown on the planting plan, and their overall screening effect will be reduced within the leaf fall months.

7.52 Whilst it is considered that the landscaping scheme fails to enhance the development proposed, should all other factors be considered to be acceptable, it is possible that an adequate landscaping scheme could be appropriately conditioned. The need for a condition is considered essential and the current scheme inappropriate, not just due to the nature of the planting proposed, but the planting plan submitted is not to the correct scale and the nature of the stock shown to be provided is not considered to be appropriate.

7.53 The walnut tree located within the southern section of the application site is protected by a Tree Preservation Order, the submitted arboricultural report, which is mostly considered to be sound, does indicate that the long term health of this tree can be ensured by the use of a "no dig" construction method where the root protection area (RPA) of the tree is infringed by the proposed car park area. Walnut Trees are particularly vulnerable to site disturbance and the survival and long term health of this tree would be best served by zero encroachment into the RPA, similarly, it is recommended that no additional planting occurs within this RPA, as this too would involve potentially damaging site disturbance.

7.54 Whilst in most circumstances there is an opportunity to condition a revised layout to a scheme, in this instance, a revised layout would result in the loss of 5 or more parking spaces and therefore potentially raise issues that have not been considered as part of this application, in relation to both parking provision and traffic flows into and out of the site, with subsequent impact on highway safety. Accordingly, it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there would be no detrimental harm to the health and longevity of the TPO Walnut Tree on site, which by virtue of the species is highly vulnerable to disturbance.

Parking layout and Highway safety

7.55 Appendix 1 of the Development Management DPD sets out the Council's maximum parking requirements for any new development. In this instance, the maximum requirement is for the provision of 1 space per 14m2

, equating to a maximum requirement for this site of 100 spaces. The applicant is

proposing the provision of 70 spaces, which given the sites proximity to the town and access to non-car modes of transport is considered to be acceptable.

7.56 This appendix also sets out the minimum cycle parking requirement for a development of this nature. The minimum requirement is for 1 space per 25m2

, thus equating to 56 spaces for this unit. The applicant has only proposed 14 cycle parking spaces, with a provision within the Interim Travel Plan for assessment and further provision to occur as necessary, monitoring is proposed to occur annually for the first 5 years and as frequently thereafter as agreed with the Local Planning Authority. As the store proposed is to employee approximately 40 people on a full time basis, the provision of only 14 spaces initially is considered to be unacceptable, as this does not even equate to half the staffing level, let alone provision for members of the public. The travel plan does state that this site is well served by the local cycle network and as such it would not be unreasonable to require the provision of at least 20 spaces in the first instance. This could however, be secured by means of an appropriate condition.

7.57 In respect of access and traffic flows, the County Council as the Highway Authority have advised that they are satisfied with the proposed access arrangement, and new pelican crossing arrangement, subject to the imposition of appropriately worded planning conditions relating to parking, turning, visibility splays etc.

Contamination

7.58 The application was supported by a desk top study report, which has been assessed and is considered to be acceptable. It is recommended that conditions are attached to any permission requiring appropriate ground investigations and any necessary remediation works.

Archaeology

7.59. The County Council have indicated that a programme of further archaeological investigation is required for this site and this can be secured through the imposition of a condition.

Flood risk

7.60 The site generally lies within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Zone maps and Barracks Brook lies to the west of the site. The Environment Agency have reviewed the information as submitted and whilst the Flood Risk Assessment is not considered to be sufficient, they are content that the remainder of the information can be secured via the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Ecological Enhancement

7.61 The applicant has not submitted any information pertaining to the existing biodiversity value of the site. PPS9 seeks to promote the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and as such an ecological survey should be undertaken prior to the commencement of development and a biodiversity plan submitted to demonstrate how the value of the site can be protected and enhanced.

5106 contributions

7.62 There are Section 106 requirements associated with a development of this nature. These are as follows:

• The bus stops on Stukeley Road are likely to be utilised more than at present, as a direct result of this proposed development. It is therefore considered reasonable to request that there be an improvement to the two bus stops on the south side of Stukeley Road and facilitate the provision of RTPI at these locations, with associated maintenance contributions. The improvements would comprise the provision and installation of bus shelters and associated street works including raised kerbs.

• Provision of RTPI - £7000 per bus stop • Maintenance - £1 000 per stop.

• Implementation of the associate Travel Plan, Monitoring and Associated Target delivery.

• Huntingdon and Godmanchester Market Town Transport Strategy contribution of £300,000.

7.63 The applicant has been advised of these requirements but has not to date given any agreement to the payment of these contributions.

Conclusion

7.64 Based on the above assessment, it is officer recommendation that the application be refused on the following grounds:

7.65 It is considered that the applicant has failed to provide an adequate and robust sequential assessment and as such has failed to demonstrate why the proposal cannot be located within the town centre, or that the development proposed would not have an adverse impact on planned retail development within Huntingdon Town Centre and Huntingdon West, contrary to PPS4, CS8 and P4.

7.66 The proposed development by virtue of its siting, design, layout and landscaping fails to represent a high quality designed scheme that enhances the appearance of the area, resulting in a bulky, uninspiring development that projects beyond the built form, such that the scheme will be over dominant when viewed from the adjacent formal open space to its detriment and visually harmful to the townscape and is located in close proximity to the adjacent footway/cycleway such that the proposal will be detrimental to the openness and natural surveillance required for a well used footway/cycleway. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to policy E8, S2, T19, En25 and En27 of the Local Plan 1995, policies E1, E2 and E7 of the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010.

7.67 The proposed development by virtue of its proximity, bulk, massing and layout will result in overshadowing to the adjacent residential block, a loss of outlook afforded to these properties and an unreasonable level of disturbance resulting from early morning/late night deliveries, such that

cumulatively the proposed development will result in an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity afforded to the adjacent residential properties, contrary to policies H30, H31 and S2 of the Local Plan 1995, policies E1 and H7 of the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010.

7.68 It is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there would be no detrimental harm to the health and longevity of the TPO Walnut Tree on site, which by virtue of the species is highly vulnerable to disturbance, contrary to policy En18 of the Local Plan 1995 and policy E5 of the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010.

If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.

8. RECOMMENDATION· REFUSE

8.1 The applicant has failed to provide an adequate and robust sequential assessment and as such has failed to demonstrate why the proposal cannot be located within the town centre, or that the development proposed would not have an adverse impact on planned retail development within Huntingdon Town Centre and Huntingdon West, contrary to PPS4, CS8 and P4.

8.2 The proposed development by virtue of its siting, design, layout and landscaping fails to represent a high quality designed scheme that enhances the appearance of the area, resulting in a bulky, uninspiring development that projects beyond the built form, such that the scheme will be over dominant when viewed from the adjacent formal open space to its detriment and visually harmful to the townscape and is located in close proximity to the adjacent footway/cycleway such that the proposal will be detrimental to the openness and natural surveillance required for a well used footway/cycleway. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to policy E8, S2, T19, En25 and En27 of the Local Plan 1995, policies E1, E2 and E7 of the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010.

8.3 The proposed development by virtue of its proximity, bulk, massing and layout will result in overshadowing to the adjacent residential block, a loss of outlook afforded to these properties and an unreasonable level of disturbance resulting from early morning/late night deliveries, such that cumulatively the proposed development will result in an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity afforded to the adjacent residential properties, contrary to policies H30, H31 and S2 of the Local Plan 1995, policies E1 and H7 of the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010.

8.4 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there would be no detrimental harm to the health and longevity of the TPO Walnut Tree on site, which by virtue of the species is highly vulnerable to disturbance, contrary to policy En18 of the Local Plan 1995 and policy E5 of the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010.

BACKGROUND PAPERS:

Planning Application File Reference 1001467FUL Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, 2003 Huntingdonshire Local Plan, 1995 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration, 2002 Adopted Huntingdonshire Core Strategy 2009 Development Management DPD Proposed Submission 2010.

CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Ms Elizabeth Fitzgerald Development Management Team Leader 01480 388490