Development Management Report - Shropshire · 4.2.3 Occupant of 14 Stokesay Avenue - Objection...

Committee and Date

Central Planning Committee

23rd May 2013

Item

10Public

Development Management Report

Responsible Officer: Tim Rogersemail: [email protected] Tel: 01743 258773 Fax: 01743 252619

Summary of Application

Application Number: 13/00392/FUL Parish: Shrewsbury Town Council

Proposal: Erection of public house/restaurant; lodge hotel, hot food takeaway (with drive-through facilities) and associated works

Site Address: Plot 3 (part) Battlefield Road Shrewsbury Shropshire SY1 4AG

Applicant: Marston's Inns And Taverns

Case Officer: Dyanne Humphreys email: [email protected]

Grid Ref: 351341 - 315965

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Shropshire Council 100049049. 2011 For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made.

Central Planning Committee: 23rd

May 2013

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773

Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1.

Recommended Reason for Approval

The proposed development is acceptable in principle, is considered to be in accordance withthe aims of the Development Plan that supports economic growth in this location and wouldhave no significant impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre. The scale design andappearance of the proposal is considered appropriate given the context of the site and wouldhave no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the locality. The proposalprovides sufficient parking and turning space within the site and would have no adversehighway safety implications. The proposal therefore accords with Shropshire LDF policiesCS1, CS2, CS6, CS13 and CS14.In arriving at this decision the Council has used its best endeavours to work with the applicantin a positive and proactive manner to secure an appropriate outcome as required in theNational Planning Policy Framework paragraph 187.

REPORT

1.0 THE PROPOSAL

1.1 This application is for the following:

Public house/restaurant;

27-bed 2-storey lodge hotel;

KFC outlet (with drive through);

114 car parking spaces across the site & 16 cycle spaces; and

Associated plant and works.

1.2 The application has been accompanied by the following supporting documents:

A Design & Access Statement (including details in respect of theenergy and sustainability credentials of the buildings and wasteminimisation);

A Transport Assessment;

Travel Plans;

Drainage Details;

Site Investigation;

Mechanical and Electrical Services Energy Recovery Statement andKFC Sustainability Statement;

Landscape Master Plan;

External Lighting Planning Layout; and

Mechanical Services Details Supply & Extract Ventilation andMechanical Ventilation & Environmental Control Equipment.

1.3 Prior to the application being made the applicant undertook pre-applicationdiscussions with the Planning team and Highways Officer of the Council. Theapplicant also addressed the Shrewsbury Planning Liaison Group attended by thefollowing parties:


May 2013


Shropshire Society of Architects;

Shrewsbury Town Centre Residents Association;

Access Group;

Shrewsbury Civic Society;

Shrewsbury Enterprise Partnership;

Shrewsbury Police Crime Prevention Design Officer;

Business Fire Safety Inspecting Officer;

Shrewsbury Town Council;

Shropshire Wildlife Trust;

Friends of the Earth; and

Shrewsbury Business Chamber.

1.4 The applicant has engaged in pre-applications discussions with the Council thathave been positive.

2.0 SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION

2.1 The application site is located approximately 4km to the north east of Shrewsburytown centre forming part of a wider commercial and retail area. The application sitemeasures approximately 1.09 hectares and comprises a vacant parcel ofbrownfield land.

2.2 The application site is accessed via an access road from Battlefield Road, theA5112, where there exists a mini roundabout serving the Tesco Extra Store,associated Petrol Filling Station (PFS) and the Harlescott Park and Ride facilities.

2.3 The application site comprises a vacant brownfield site of concrete hardstandingand scrubland within the urban limits of Shrewsbury town. The area surroundingthe application site is generally commercial in nature with large retail facilities/unitsbeing predominant as well as commercial trade facilities.

2.4 Facilities in the local area and in close proximity to the application include theHarlescott Park and Ride facilities, Tesco Extra Store and PFS, car dealerships,industrial facilities including Stafford Bye Products and ABP Abattoir, McDonald’sfast food restaurant and drive through, local shops, Lidl and Aldi supermarkets,B&Q, Matalan and Staples and other retail facilities found at Sundorne Retail Parkoff Arlington Way.

2.5 There is a fall of 1 metre north to south across the site and there exists a raisedearth mound to the front of the application site adjacent the existing access road.

3.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE/DELEGATED DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION

3.1 The application has been called-in by the Local member because the scheme hasbeen judged to be locally controversial.


May 2013


4.0 COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIONS

4.1.0 Consultee Comments

4.1.1 Shrewsbury Town Council – Comments

Comment -Members have no objection to the principle of development per se.Members feel that the design of the building is not suitable for the area and thatdevelopers have not taken on board local comments made at previous meetingswith the Planning Advisory Group.

Second comment (received 18th April 2013) - The Council’s comments were basedupon the discussions at a recent Planning Liaison Group which had expressedconcern over design and layout. It was also noted that nearby ABP had expressedobjections on the basis that this was a semi-residential application in the industrialheartland of the town. Comments had also been raised by the Business Chamberabout the impact on an already busy junction.

4.1.2 SC Drainage – No objection

Following negotiations with the applicant’s drainage engineers SC Drainage teamare satisfied that the drainage arrangements can be finalised post-decision and anappropriately worded condition has been included.

4.1.3 SC Archaeology (Historic Environment) – No objection

The proposed development site is located c. 500m south of the south-easterncorner of Shrewsbury Registered Battlefield (National Heritage List ref. 1000033). Itis separated from it by the railway line and intervening commercial/ industrialdevelopment, and is currently occupied by hard standings and scrub on the edge ofthe former Shrewsbury Livestock Market site. In my opinion the impact of theproposed development on the setting of the Registered Battlefield will therefore benegligible, whilst the archaeological interest of the proposed development site itselfis low- minimal. On this basis I therefore have no further comments to make on thisapplication with respect to archaeological matters.

4.1.4 SC Trees – No objection

Consulted: 13th February 2013 Reply Received : 14th February 2013

There are no protected or important amenity trees on site and a landscape schemewith new planting has been submitted. Therefore I have no objections on thegrounds of trees.

4.1.5 SC Ecologist – No objection

I have no ecological comments to make on this application.

4.1.6 SC Planning Policy – No objection

On the basis of the merits of this stand-alone proposal the scheme would not beprecluded by the current planning policy framework. The key policy considerationsare:

NPPF Paragraphs 23-27

Core Strategy Policy CS2: Shrewsbury Development Strategy;


May 2013


Core Strategy Policy CS14: Managed Release of Employment Land;

Core Strategy Policy CS15: Town and Rural Centres.

It is the view that the scope of the application does not conflict with these policies,although the broad thrust of Policies CS2 and CS15 are to enhance the vitality andviability of town centres. Although we would raise no policy objections to theproposal on its individual merits it would clearly be preferable for this site to havecome forward as a cohesive package with adjoining uses, to ensure a suitable mixand diversity of uses as part of a co-ordinated approach for the site andneighbouring land.

4.1.7 SC Economic Development - Support

The application will increase the mix of uses in the area as well as providingsupport services for those working in the adjacent Battlefield employment area(including meeting places/rooms) and those shoppers using the retail park andshould be supported. The design of the scheme whilst acceptable reflects the retailpark suburban character dominated by car parking. The option of linking the puband the hotel could be explored to create more urban feel with a separate parkingarea.

4.1.8 SC Public Protection (Specialist) – No objection

The site is bordered by two operations that are regulated by Environmental Permit,one by Shropshire Council and the other by the Environment Agency. Havingreviewed the proposals subject to this application there do not appear to be anyimpacts from them that may have any adverse impact on the existing sites and thecontrols within the permits for the existing operations are adequate to mitigate anyimpact on the proposed development. I therefore have no further substantivecomments to submit.

4.1.9 SC Highways DC

I query service vehicles entering and leaving the site in a satisfactory manner.Apart for KFC there appears to be no provision for the Restaurant and Bed Lodge.It is not clear whether articulated vehicles can satisfactorily manoeuvre into and outof the development site off the service road. I would ask therefore that theapplicant/agent clarify this issue together with swept path vehicle tracking todemonstrate the satisfactory manoeuvring of large type vehicles. How has theparking level been arrived at? (comments in response to Shrewsbury BusinessChamber) Noted although I have no clue where this reference to 100 vehiclescomes from?

4.2.0 Public Comments

4.2.1 The application has been advertised by Public Notice in the Shropshire Star; by sitenotice displayed on the application site, and 11 neighbours were sent notificationletters. In response the Council has received 3 letters of objection from neighbours(2 residential and 1 commercial), and an objection from the Shrewsbury BusinessChamber. Comments have also been received from the Shropshire Fire andRescue officer. The main comments received from these interested parties are setout below. NB. All correspondence is available to view in full on Public Access.


May 2013


4.2.2 Occupant of 43 Mayfield Close Battlefield - Objection

Comment -Whilst I am not necessarily 100% against this application. I would askthat certain factors be heavily considered. I live off Battlefield Road and alreadyhave serious issues trying to pull out of my road onto the Battlefield Road due toweight of traffic, at certain times of day it is almost impossible, coupled with thespeed that many drivers are doing - which is not the 30 MPH limit. We also alreadyhave large amounts of discarded McDonald’s wrappers, bags, and cups that peoplesee fit to throw out of their car windows, littering Battlefield Road and blowing intomy road. This is not only unsightly; but also a danger for those of us with pets. Ifyet more takeaways are going to be built then there needs to be a weekly litter pickup scheduled to deal with this - I don’t see why I should be collecting other people'slitter due to their laziness. The traffic levels must also be addressed.

4.2.3 Occupant of 14 Stokesay Avenue - Objection

Comment -Shropshire Council constantly lament the poor situation in the towncentre with regard to businesses etc. and then continue to approve out of townfacilities. Battlefield already has a hotel/restaurant/fast food/coffee shop complex atthe roundabout. In addition there is a pub and a MacDonald’s within 300 metres ofthe roundabout. The Premier Inn has just opened in the town centre. There areout of town hotels at Dobbies and also Hampton by Hilton. How many of thesefacilities do we need? Have you looked at the capacity take-up/bookings of thesecurrent facilities? Not to mention the adverse effect all of these places have on ourtown centre. You are slowly killing the town centre and the small businesses andaccommodation establishments will not survive. I recently went to Hereford - awful!The same old shops and same old chains/restaurants. Please do not do this toShrewsbury.

4.2.4 Shrewsbury Business Chamber – Objection

On behalf of the Shrewsbury Business Chamber I am opposed to the developmentat this time until the North West Relief Road has been completed. This applicationshould be reviewed in conjunction with further improvements to the infrastructure inthis area to overcome the known extreme road congestion at certain times to roadusers. At such time when the recommendations have been implemented fully, andnecessary work completed, the application may be resubmitted. As stated manytimes before and agreed by Council, a holistic study should be made of trafficmovement in the area, as per the original funded TFI, and recommendationsimplemented. The area around Battlefield and Harlescott has been open todevelopment without due consideration to the current volume of traffic and the postdevelopment volume of traffic in the area used by Business, Employees andResidents. The land sales in the area generated cash for the Council. I believethese monies have not been used to contribute to any infrastructure improvementsto ensure free traffic flow. Another developer showing interest in this site was toldby the local planning authority that the above mentioned site could only have amaximum of 100 (one hundred) vehicle movements per day until the North WestRelief Road was completed. I am optimistic that local knowledge of the area andplanning vision for the future will deliver the correct result for our Town.

4.2.5 Occupier of ABP (UK) Battlefield Road – Objection

At the outset, ABP wishes to state the Company has consistently stated to officers


May 2013


of the Council that it does not object to the principle of compatible industrial typedevelopment in the vicinity of its site. The Company has also consistently statedthat land uses that have potential to bring significant numbers of the general publicto the immediate area of its Plant have the real potential to undermine theoperational requirements of the Plant to the extent that over time the very viabilityof the Plant itself and thereby jobs could be threatened.

The proposed development, incorporating a public house with outdoor eating andrecreational facilities along with a hotel are the very type of land uses that havestrong potential to attract significant numbers of the general public to the immediatevicinity of the Plant. For this reason ABP has no choice but to very strongly objectto the proposed development. The reasons for objecting are set out in thisObjection Statement. ABP is gravely concerned that the nature of the proposeduser, bringing the general public into the immediate vicinity of the Plant will lead todirect and material conflict with the operational requirements of the Plant. TheCompany is extremely concerned that the proposal of itself and by reason of theprecedent it would set would over time, of itself and in combination with similardevelopments threaten the very viability of the Plant. ABP has operatedsuccessfully on its present site since 1989. ABP is an employer not only of localsignificance, but of regional and indeed National importance. There are 510 peopledirectly employed at the ABP Shrewsbury Plant. In addition, the Plant acts as animportant sales outlet for the surrounding farming community with over 3,000farmers registered to supply to the facility. In this way the Plant supports the ruralfarming community. In addition to direct employment, there is significant indirectemployment provided by way of servicing for the Plant. The ABP Shrewsbury Plantprovides the main family income for a very large number of families in importantcontributor to the success of not only the local economy, but also the regionaleconomy.

It is strongly contended that the proposed development fails the basic test ofsustainability. The proposal, if permitted would positively undermine the ability offuture generations to meet their needs. This is because the development proposedenvisages building large "public-use" buildings i.e. public house and restaurants,with outdoor recreational and eating facilities as well as a hotel within c 100 metresof a major factory that is an employer of regional significance, that has been inplace since the 1960's and owned and operated by ABP since 1989.Notwithstanding that the ABP Plant operates within all required licensing andregulatory requirements, the Company is strongly of the opinion that if permitted theproposed development would quickly lead to conflict between these twoincompatible land uses. In very simple terms one could readily envisage theoperators of the hotel and restaurant making complaints because they cannot letrooms or operate their public house / restaurant because customers arecomplaining of what are standard activities at the factory. It is our strongly held viewthat such conflict would arise notwithstanding that ABP Shrewsbury operates withinall required licensing and regulatory requirements.

ABP has said it would not object in principle to compatible industrial-type units inthe vicinity of its Plant and this remains the case. By contrast, the proposeddevelopment has the potential to attract significant numbers of the public to tileimmediate environs of the ABP Plant. Such development would essentiallyrepresent unsustainable development.


May 2013


4.2.6 Shropshire Fire Officer – Comments

Access for Emergency Fire Service Vehicles - It will be necessary to provideadequate access for emergency fire vehicles. For buildings other than privatehousing there should be sufficient access for fire service vehicles to within 45metres of every point on the projected plan area or a percentage of the perimeter,whichever is less onerous. The percentage will be determined by the total floorarea of the building. This issue will be dealt with at the Building Regulations stageof the development. However, the Fire Authority advise that early consideration isgiven to this matter.

Water Supplies for Fire fighting - It has been identified that water supplies for firefighting purposes will need to be provided on the development to ensure adequatefire safety measures. This can be achieved by the provision of fire hydrants on newor existing water mains or by other satisfactory means. It is recommended thatthese requirements are designed in by the developer at an early stage especiallywhere new water mains are to be laid.

Recommended Minimum Flow Rates and Location of Fire Hydrants - The LocalGovernment Association (LGA)/Water UK National Guidance Document details thefollowing rates as the minimum necessary for fire fighting, in particular riskcategories where new developments are under construction. It is important to notethat the current Building Regulations require an adequate water supply for fire-fighting. If any building has a compartment of 280m2 or more in area and there isno existing fire hydrant within 100 metres, a reasonable water supply must beavailable. Failure to comply with this requirement may prevent the applicant fromobtaining a final certificate.

Sprinkler Systems - Residential Premises

In relation to the residential premises within the application, the benefit of installinga correctly designed sprinkler system which can detect and control a fire at an earlystage of development will rapidly reduce the rate of production of heat and smoke.Evidence suggests that where fire sprinkler systems have been fitted, fire deathshave almost been eliminated, fire injuries reduced by over 80%, and a significantimprovement in fire fighter safety achieved. In addition, property damage has beenreduced by over 80% and where sprinklers are fitted there is a considerablereduction in the volume of water taken from service mains by the fire and rescueservice for fire fighting. Accordingly, It is recommended that consideration is givento the installation of sprinkler systems within the residential properties that conformto the 'BS 9251:2005 - Sprinkler Systems for Residential and DomesticOccupancies - Code of Practice' published by the British Standards Institute.

5.0 THE MAIN ISSUES

Principle of development;

Impact of the use on surrounding residential properties and theiramenity;

Impact on the highway/footpath network;

Impact on archaeology;

Impact on trees and biodiversity;

Other issues raised.


May 2013


6.0 OFFICER APPRAISAL

6.1 Principle of development

6.1.1 The National Planning Policy Framework was published in March 2012 andreplaces most of the existing national Planning Policy Statements and GuidanceNotes therefore providing a new policy framework for both plan making anddecision making at the local level.

6.1.2 The section of ‘Achieving Sustainable Development’ identifies that there are threedimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental, andthat these are mutually dependent.

6.1.3 Paragraph 14 confirms that at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour ofsustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread through bothplan-making and decision-taking.

6.1.4 Paragraph 17 details the core planning principles explaining that planning shouldproactively drive and support sustainable economic development and that everyeffort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, businessand other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wideropportunities for growth. Planning should also seek to secure high quality designand support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate as well asseek to reuse previously developed (brownfield land), provided it is not of highenvironmental value.

6.1.5 Paragraph 21 states that investment in business should not be over-burdened bythe combined requirements of planning policy expectations. Only where anapplication fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have a significantadverse impact on the investment, vitality and viability of the existing town centre,should it be refused.

6.1.6 Paragraph 32 within the section on ‘Promoting Sustainable Transport’ notes that alldevelopments that generate significant amounts of movements should besupported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Decision shouldtake account of whether:

the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken updepending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need formajor transport infrastructure;

safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and

improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that costeffectively limit the significant impacts of the development.Development should only be prevented or refused on transport groundswhere the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe.

6.1.7 The section on ‘Decision-Taking’ with the NPPF notes that local planningauthorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the deliveryof sustainable development (paragraph 186). Local planning authorities shouldlook for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level shouldseek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible(paragraph 187).


May 2013


6.1.8 Shropshire LDF Core Strategy policies CS1and CS2 identify Shrewsbury as thefocus for significant retail, office and employment development. Policy CS2 alsosupports the improvement of the Shrewsbury Northern Corridor in accordance withthe aims of the Northern Corridor Regeneration Framework to enhance majorexisting commercial, employment and mixed use areas as a priority.

6.1.9 CS2 also recognises the need for the continuing development of high qualitybusiness parks on the edge of the town centre and the periphery of the town,including the Battlefield Enterprise Park, and the importance of the Sundorne retailpark which has scope for enhancement and expansion.

6.1.10 Policy CS13 promotes Shropshire as a business investment location and a placefor a range of business types to start up, invest and grow, and for Shrewsbury todevelop its roles as the growth point and the main business, service and visitorcentre.

6.1.11 CS14 outlines that a strategic supply of employment land and premises will beidentified and managed and a portfolio of employment land and premises will beidentified and maintained by protecting existing strategic employment land andpremises and safeguarding sufficient land to facilitate the delivery of ancillaryfacilities, services or uses which support enterprise and economic growth especiallyin employment developments.

6.1.12 The proposed site is surrounded by a mix of uses including employment and retailand although not specifically identified as protected employment land it waspreviously designated as such under SABC policy EM2; this policy now carries littleweight.

6.1.13 The site lies adjacent to the Battlefield Enterprise park and Industrial Estate whichis allocated employment land under saved SABC policy EM1 and is near to theSundorne Retail Park. It is also situated within the Shrewsbury Northern Corridor.

6.1.14 The policy framework highlighted above now needs to be applied to this scheme.The proposal will provide approximately 3245 square metres of floor space formixed A3 Restaurants and cafés; A4 Drinking establishments; A5 Hot foodtakeaways; and C1 Hotels. Taking the positive approach promoted by the NPPFcoupled with the brownfield status of this site within an area identified foremployment and growth the principle of the development proposed is reasonable.

6.1.15 The representations received highlight two main concerns relating to thesustainability of the site and as such compliance with policy, these are:

that the proposed A3 A$ and A5 uses proposed will impact adverselyon the vitality and viability of the town centre; and

the proposed uses are incompatible with the existing adjacent useundertaken by ABP UK (abattoir) and as such pressure my result forthe abattoir to close/relocate.


May 2013


6.1.16 In examining the first point the NPPF and LDF Policies CS2, CS14 and CS15 seekto enhance the vitality and viability of town centres. As A3, A4 and A5 uses areconsidered to be a ‘town centre’ uses their impact, being located outside of theprinciple retail core, needs to be considered. The threshold for requiring a RetailImpact Assessment is set out in paragraph 26 of the NPPF; it reads: “Whenassessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of towncentres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planningauthorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over aproportionate, locally set floor space threshold (if there is no locally set threshold,the default threshold is 2,500 sqm)…”

6.1.17 Whilst there is a stated intention in draft policy MD10 of the SAMDev document tohave a locally set threshold of 500sqm, this can be given no weight at this timesince it is still at the consultation stage and may be subject to change.

6.1.18 Given the NPPF set the threshold at 2,500sqm and this is the figure we arerequired to work to until such time as a the Council adopts a locally set floor spacethreshold there is a supposition made that proposals with a floor area below2,500sqm the impact is likely to be insignificant and as such does not warrant anassessment.

6.1.19 The town centre is well provided for with pubs, eateries and hotels. It is notanticipated that the A3 A4 and A5 uses proposed for this site would have asignificantly adverse impact on those businesses operating from a Town Centresite to warrant a refusal on this basis. These operations will most likelycomplement those businesses within the town centre with visitors staying at themotel utilising both the on-site eateries and also those in the town centre.

6.1.20 Turning to the second issue. Concern has been raised from ABP UK that use ofthe site as proposed would undermine the operational requirements of the ABPplant and potentially impact on employment and would be in conflict with the landuse policies outlined above. A substantive objection has been received from thecompany.

6.1.21 They state that the “…proposed development fails the basic test of sustainability.The proposal, if permitted would positively undermine the ability of futuregenerations to meet their needs. This is because the development proposedenvisages building large "public-use" buildings i.e. public house and restaurants,with outdoor recreational and eating facilities as well as a hotel within c 100 metresof a major factory that is an employer of regional significance, that has been inplace since the 1960's and owned and operated by ABP since 1989.Notwithstanding that the ABP Plant operates within all required licensing andregulatory requirements, the Company is strongly of the opinion that if permitted theproposed development would quickly lead to conflict between these twoincompatible land uses. In very simple terms one could readily envisage theoperators of the hotel and restaurant making complaints because they cannot letrooms or operate their public house / restaurant because customers arecomplaining of what are standard activities at the factory. It is our strongly held view


May 2013


that such conflict would arise notwithstanding that ABP Shrewsbury operates withinall required licensing and regulatory requirements.”

6.1.22 In their representations the company draws attention to the emphasis given inPolicy CS13 to “… recognising the continued importance of farming for foodproduction and supporting rural enterprise and diversification of the economy, inparticular areas of economic activity associated with agricultural farmdiversification, forestry, green tourism and leisure, food and drink processing, andpromotion of local food supply chains. "

6.1.23 They further state: The importance of the food production sector not only to thelocal but also the regional economy is evident at the "Explanation" to Policy CS13where it states - "The County is home to a significant number of national food anddrink producers and many major food processors."

6.1.24 In response the applicant points out that the operations of the abattoir site areregulated by both the Council’s Public Protection team and also benefit from alicense issued by the Environment Agency. The applicant asserts if the site isoperating within the terms and conditions of its licence, overseen by theEnvironment Agency, no conflict will arise. It is only if the company is operatingoutside the terms and conditions specified with the license that any conflict willarise.

6.1.25 In this debate the Council can take further reassurance from the Council’s PublicProtection team who comment “…there do not appear to be any impacts from themthat may have any adverse impact on the existing sites and the controls within thepermits for the existing operations are adequate to mitigate any impact on theproposed development. I therefore have no further substantive comments tosubmit.”

6.1.26 Whilst the concern of the adjacent business is understandable; their investment isconsiderable, they employ a large number of people and they make a significantcontribution to the local and national economy which should not be undervalued.However, given decision-making is required to be evidence based, the evidence inthis case indicates that the concerns expressed, whilst acknowledged andappreciated are however not supported by any evidence and appear to beunwarranted.

6.27 In summary, the use of this site for the purposes proposed is considered to complywith the aims of Policy CS1, CS2, CS13 and CS14 in promoting employment withinthe urban area of Shrewsbury on previously developed land adjacent to existingallocated employment land and existing industrial estates and business and retailparks. The provision of pub/restaurant and takeaway unit will provide facilities andservices that will support existing employment development as well as visitors tothe town. It is therefore considered that this proposal would enhance and supportthe existing mix of uses in the area and would not undermine the ability of existingsurrounding business to operate successfully and therefore would not result in theloss of employment as suggested. The development is therefore considered to beacceptable in principle.


May 2013


6.2 Impact of the use on surrounding residential properties and their amenity

6.2.1 In response to this application 2 letter of objection have been received from nearbyresidential home-owners. Whilst one is concerned about the impact on the towncentre, which has been addressed above, the other raises issues of traffic (to beaddressed) and litter.

6.2.2 It is not within the remit of planning control to take account of litter potentiallygenerated from a development. In decision-making the decision-maker shouldassume that businesses and their customers behave responsibly. Planningpermission cannot reasonably be withheld because some parties may behaveirresponsibly and not dispose of their litter correctly. This is not meant to belittle theconcern, and it is acknowledged that the irresponsible disposal of litter is a widersocial issue. To address this concern an informative has been included to advisethe operators to take their responsibilities seriously regarding the safe disposal ofwrappers from their products.

6.2.3 In terms of neighbourliness the development is sufficiently removed from thepredominantly residential area to have any significant impact. Therefore in thisregard the application is considered to be reasonable.

6.3 Impact on the highway/footpath network

6.3.1 The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment. This documentexamines the impact of the application proposals on the existing local highwaynetwork and accessibility of the site in relation to sustainable transport and localfacilities; preapplication discussions took place with the Council’s HighwaysDevelopment Control Officer.

6.3.2 The applicant states: “The application site is located within an establishedcommercial area where there exists large retail and employment areas accessedfrom Battlefield Road. The site is therefore ideally placed to serve those utilising thelocal commercial facilities and those working and living in the locality.”

6.3.3 “The site will be accessed via the existing access road (realigned) of the northernarm of the mini-roundabout that currently serves the Tesco Extra Store and thoseutilising the Park and Ride facilities.”

6.3.4 “The site is well served by public transport with frequent services available fromexisting bus stops within easy walking distance including those found at the TescoExtra Store and at the park and ride. As such, it is already located in an area wherethere exists a good choice of travel by sustainable means and non-private carmodes. It should however be noted that due to the nature of the proposals whichincludes a drive-through facility there will inevitably be car bourne movements toand from the site.”

6.3.5 “Facilities for pedestrians will be provided within the application site in the form offootways with connections being provided to the existing footways and crossing


May 2013


facilities found at the mini roundabout serving the Tesco Extra Store and existingHarlescott Park & Ride facilities. The site is therefore accessible on foot with it alsobeing in close proximity to a number of bus stops providing regular services to thelocal centre and surroundings.”

6.3.6 “Cycle parking is to be provided on site with will be fully accessible to both staff andmembers of the public thereby promoting alternative means of sustainabletransport. The level of cycle parking is considered practical for the developmentproposals.”

6.3.7 “The Transport Assessment also notes that not all trips will be totally new to thehighway network with a proportion of trips to the public house/restaurant and KFCoutlet being associated with those trips to the adjacent retail areas and food store(Tesco Extra) with pass by trips or linked trips comprising a large proportion of theoverall trips and others transferring from similar facilities.”

6.3.8 “A total of 114 car parking spaces are to be provided across the application siteincluding 7 dedicated disabled parking spaces. This provision is considered to beproportionate to the development and uses proposed as well as its location wherethere will inevitably be linked trips. The numbers are in themselves sufficient for theoperational requirements of the public house/restaurant, lodge hotel and KFCoutlet.”

6.3.9 “A Travel Plan has been prepared for Marston’s element of the applicationproposals, public house/restaurant, and KFC element, KFC outlet with drive-through facilities, which seek to set out a long term strategy for reducingdependence on travel by private car particularly for employees. The Travel Plansset out the measures that will be put in place to encourage sustainable access.Both Marston’s and KFC acknowledge their wider responsibilities to encouragesustainable development that will lead to the protection of the environment.Therefore, all future employees will be made aware of their Travel Planresponsibilities when they are appointed to ensure the Travel Plan objectives areaffective upon occupation.”

6.3.10 The formal submission has been considered by the Council’s HighwaysDevelopment Control and whilst no substantive response has been forthcoming thegeneral view is that the proposal is acceptable. It is therefore considered that theapplication proposals fully accord with Policy CS8 of the adopted Core Strategy inrelation to access to facilities and the provision of development in locations that areappropriate and accessible, and the general principles of sustainable developmentset out within the NPPF (2012).

6.4 Impact on archaeology

6.4.1 The application has been considered by the Council’s Archaeology Officer. Thesite has some association with the Shrewsbury Registered Battlefield due to itslocation. However, it is separated from the Battlefield by a railway line andintervening commercial/ industrial development. It is the opinion of the Council’sarchaeologist that the likely impact on the setting of the Registered Battlefield will


May 2013


therefore be negligible. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordancewith policy CS17 of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy.

6.5 Impact on trees and biodiversity

6.5.1 The scheme has been considered by the Council’s Tree Officer and the PlanningEcologist. It is concluded that the site offers little in respect of either of these areasof interest. As such the scheme is judged to be in accordance with policy CS17 ofthe Council’s adopted Core Strategy.

6.7 Other issues raised

6.7.1 The scheme has received comments from Shrewsbury Town Council expressingno objection in principle but commenting that “…the design of the building is notsuitable for the area..” The applicant has attempted to resolve this concern with theTown Council, however, they offered no further clarification as to which buildingthey were concerned about, and what aspect of the design the felt wasinappropriate. It was also noted that the Town Council made this same response to2 other current applications (including the application for advertisement consent forthis site). As such this could not be constructively pursued.

6.7.2 It is the officer’s view that the design of each of the buildings being proposed withinthis scheme is appropriate to this site, and accordingly the Council have not askedthe applicant to revisit any aspect of the design.

6.7.3 The application has been considered by the Council’s drainage team. Theapplication was submitted with comprehensive drainage details including a surfacewater flood map and a Flood Risk Assessment. Negotiations have been on-goingwith the Council’s drainage team and the applicants’ drainage engineers and apost-decision condition is now considered reasonable to conclude these finaldetails.

6.7.4 Comments have also been received from the Shropshire Fire Officer; these aredetailed in paragraph 4.2.6 above. These matters of detail are assessed within theBuilding Regulations, and as such fall outside the remit of planning. An informativehas been included to pass the advice offered onto the applicant.

7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 It is acknowledged that this application has attracted an objection from ABP (UK)and additionally the Shrewsbury Business Chamber and their concerns have beentaken into account in arriving at a recommendation. However, the NPPF makes itclear that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It isacknowledged that the objectors make the point that they do not believe thedevelopment to be sustainable because of the adverse impact they argue it willhave on their business. However, decisions have to be taken based on theevidence available and in relation to this issue the Council’s Public Protectionofficer has raised no objections. It would therefore be unreasonable to resist thescheme on the grounds put forward by the objector.


May 2013


7.2 The land is allocated for employment generating uses. The applicant states thatthey expected the proposed public house/restaurant and hotel to generateemployment numbers in the region of 50 – 60, and the KFC restaurant to create upto 40 new employees split between full time and part time members of staff andoffice accommodation creating in the region of 5 – 8 additional posts. Theproposed uses will therefore generate local employment through the provision ofboth full and part time jobs during the day and evening.

7.3 The uses proposed will generate employment which whilst strictly not employmentuses within the limits of those defined as business uses, (i.e. B1, B2 and B8), willcontribute to the overall aims and objectives of the spatial polities detailed withinthe Council’s Core Strategy and the NPPF.

7.4 The site is located where both employees and customers can access the site by avariety of transport modes. No objection has been received from the Council’sHighways Development Control team to indicate that the highway network cannotaccommodate the likely traffic to be generated by this scheme.

7.5 Overall, the scheme is considered to be acceptable and this view is supported bythe Council’s Planning Policy team. Conditions to cover the areas of detail thatrequire some refinement are to be included; the scheme is recommended forapproval.

8.0 RISK ASSESSMENT AND OPPORTUNITIES APPRAISAL

8.1 Risk Management

There are two principal risks associated with this recommendation as follows:

As with any planning decision the applicant has a right of appeal if theydisagree with the decision and/or the imposition of conditions. Costs can beawarded irrespective of the mechanism for hearing the appeal - writtenrepresentations, a hearing or inquiry.

The decision is challenged by way of a Judicial Review by a third party.The courts become involved when there is a misinterpretation or misapplicationof policy or some breach of the rules of procedure or the principles of naturaljustice. However their role is to review the way the authorities reach decisions,rather than to make a decision on the planning issues themselves, althoughthey will interfere where the decision is so unreasonable as to be irrational orperverse. Therefore they are concerned with the legality of the decision, not itsplanning merits. A challenge by way of Judicial Review must be a) promptly andb) in any event not later than three months after the grounds to make the claimfirst arose first arose.

Both of these risks need to be balanced against the risk of not proceeding todetermine the application. In this scenario there is also a right of appeal againstnon-determination for application for which costs can also be awarded.

8.2 Human Rights

Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balancedagainst the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of theCounty in the interests of the Community.


May 2013


First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balancedagainst the impact on residents.

This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the aboverecommendation.

8.3 Equalities

The concern of planning law is to regulate the use of land in the interests of thepublic at large, rather than those of any particular group. Equality will be one of anumber of ‘relevant considerations’ that need to be weighed in planning committeemembers’ minds under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1970.

9.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are likely financial implications of the decision and/or imposition of conditionsis challenged by a planning appeal or judicial review. The costs of defending anydecision will be met by the authority and will vary dependant on the scale andnature of the proposal. The financial implications of any decision are not a materialplanning consideration and should not be "weighed" in planning committeemembers' mind when reaching a decision.

10.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

10.1 RELEVANT POLICIES

NPPF

Shropshire Core Strategy;

Policy CS1: Strategic Approach;

Policy CS2: Shrewsbury Development Strategy;

Policy CS6: Sustainable Design and Development Principles;

Policy CS8: Facilities, Services and Infrastructure Provision;

Policy CS9: Infrastructure Contributions;

Policy CS13: Economic Development, Enterprise and Employment;

Policy CS14: Managed Release of Employment Land;

Policy CS15: Town and Rural Centres;

Policy CS16: Tourism, Culture and Leisure;

Policy CS17: Environmental Networks; and

Policy CS18: Sustainable Water Management.

10.2 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

PREAPP/12/00160 180 Cover Pub/Restaurant - Feasibility POSITIVE ADVICEGIVEN 2nd May 2012

12/05031/FUL Re-alignment of access road and highway works to facilitate futuredevelopment and erection of sub-station GRANT 30th January 2013

13/00392/FUL Erection of public house/restaurant; lodge hotel, hot food takeaway(with drive-through facilities) and associated works PENDING


May 2013


13/00393/ADV Display of one internally illuminated pylon sign; internally illuminatedbuilding signage, internally illuminated sign box, directional ground signs and baysigns PENDING

11.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

List of Background Papers: 12/05031/FUL; and 13/00392/FUL.

Cabinet Member (Portfolio Holder) – Cllr M. Price

Local Member – Cllr Malcolm Price

Appendices – APPENDIX 1 - Conditions


May 2013


APPENDIX 1

Conditions

STANDARD CONDITION(S)

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three yearsfrom the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (Asamended).

2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans anddrawings.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried outin accordance with the approved plans and details.

CONDITION(S) THAT REQUIRE APPROVAL BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT COMMENCES

3. No development shall take place on site until full details and calculations of the proposedsurface and foul water drainage for the relevant phase of the development have beensubmitted to, and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Drainage details andcalculations of the access road and car park included in the relevant phase of thedevelopment should be provided. This should indicate that the proposed gullies / kerbdrains will be able to transfer the 1 in 100 year + climate change storm event into theattenuation system efficiently, or provide a plan indicating where exceedance flows willbe stored prior to entering the attenuation system. This is to ensure that any such flowsare managed on site. The discharge of any such flows across the adjacent land wouldnot be permitted and would mean that the proposed tank is not being used. Confirmationthat these exceedance flows will not flood any adjacent property. The approvedschemes shall be completed before each relevant phase of the development is used.Reason: To ensure satisfactory surface water drainage of the site and to minimise floodrisk elsewhere as a result of the development and also to ensure that the foul waterdrainage system complies with the Building Regulations H2.

CONDITION(S) THAT REQUIRE APPROVAL DURING THE CONSTRUCTION/PRIOR TOTHE OCCUPATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

4. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approveddetails. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of thedevelopment or in accordance with the timetable agreed with the Local PlanningAuthority. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, areremoved, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriouslydamaged or defective, shall be replaced with others of species, size and number asoriginally approved, by the end of the first available planting season.Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonablestandard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs.


May 2013


Informatives

1. By virtue of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, your attention is drawn to thefollowing statutory provisions and Code of Practice relating to the needs of disabledpeople: Sections 4, 7 and 8A of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970,Disability Discrimination Act 1995, BSI Code of Practice BS5810:1979 relating to Accessfor Disabled to Buildings, and the Building Regulations 1992 Approved Document M.Please ensure that you are taking account of these requirements.

2. It is recommended that the applicant investigate ways of incorporating techniques of‘Sustainable Urban Drainage’ into this development. These will help to minimise theimpact of the development with features such as porous parking, detention ponds, grassswales and infiltration trenches. This will maintain the recharge of groundwaterresources, reduce large fluctuations in river flows during rainfall and stop pollutants fromroad runoff from entering watercourses. Further information can be obtained from theEnvironment Agency.

3. THIS PERMISSION DOES NOT CONVEY A BUILDING REGULATIONS APPROVALunder the Building Regulations 2010. The works may also require Building Regulationsapproval. If you have not already done so, you should contact the Council's BuildingControl Section on 01743 252430 or 01743 252440.

4. Access for Emergency Fire Service Vehicles - It will be necessary to provide adequateaccess for emergency fire vehicles. For buildings other than private housing thereshould be sufficient access for fire service vehicles to within 45 metres of every point onthe projected plan area or a percentage of the perimeter, whichever is less onerous. Thepercentage will be determined by the total floor area of the building. For housing, thereshould be access for a pumping appliance to within 45 metres of all points within thedwelling. This issue will be dealt with at the Building Regulations stage of thedevelopment. However, the Fire Authority advise that early consideration is given to thismatter. 'THE BUILDING REGULATIONS, 2000 (2006 EDITION) FIRE SAFETYAPPROVED DOCUMENT B5.' provides details of typical fire service appliancespecifications.

Water Supplies for Fire fighting - It has been identified that water supplies for fire fightingpurposes will need to be provided on the development to ensure adequate fire safetymeasures. This can be achieved by the provision of fire hydrants on new or existingwater mains or by other satisfactory means. It is recommended that these requirementsare designed in by the developer at an early stage especially where new water mainsare to be laid.

Recommended Minimum Flow Rates and Location of Fire Hydrants - The LocalGovernment Association (LGA)/Water UK National Guidance Document details thefollowing rates as the minimum necessary for fire fighting, in particular risk categorieswhere new developments are under construction.1. Housing - Minimum of 8 l/sec (480 l/min) for detached or semi-detached of not morethan two floors up to 35 l/sec (2100 l/min) for units of more than two floors, from anysingle hydrant on the development.


May 2013


2. Industry (industrial estates) - It is recommended that the water supply infrastructureshould provide as follows with the mains network on site normally being at least 150mmnominal diameter:. Up to one hectare minimum of 20 l/sec (1200 l/min). One to two hectares minimum of 35 l/sec (2100 l/min). Two to three hectares minimum of 50 l/sec (3000 l/min). Over three hectares minimum of 75 l/sec (4500 l/min)It is important to note that the current Building Regulations require an adequate watersupply for fire fighting. If any building has a compartment of 280m2 or more in area andthere is no existing fire hydrant within 100 metres, a reasonable water supply must beavailable. Failure to comply with this requirement may prevent the applicant fromobtaining a final certificate.

Sprinkler Systems - Residential Premises - In relation to the residential premises withinthe application, the benefit of installing a correctly designed sprinkler system which candetect and control a fire at an early stage of development will rapidly reduce the rate ofproduction of heat and smoke. Evidence suggests that where fire sprinkler systems havebeen fitted, fire deaths have almost been eliminated, fire injuries reduced by over 80%,and a significant improvement in fire fighter safety achieved. In addition, propertydamage has been reduced by over 80% and where sprinklers are fitted there is aconsiderable reduction in the volume of water taken from service mains by the fire andrescue service for fire fighting. Accordingly, It is recommended that consideration isgiven to the installation of sprinkler systems within the residential properties that conformto the 'BS 9251:2005 - Sprinkler Systems forResidential and Domestic Occupancies - Code of Practice' published by the BritishStandards Institute. Further guidance on residential sprinkler systems can be obtainedby contacting the British Automatic Sprinkler Association Ltd on 01353 659187 or theirweb site www.basa.org.uk

5. NOTE TO APPLICANT: You are hereby reminded that all litter and other packaginggenerated from these permitted operations should be disposed of responsibly. It isespecially important that fast-food establishments impress upon their customers theimportance of disposing of litter appropriately,

Development Management Report - Shropshire · 4.2.3 Occupant of 14 Stokesay Avenue - Objection...

Documents

Transcript of Development Management Report - Shropshire · 4.2.3 Occupant of 14 Stokesay Avenue - Objection...