APPLICATION:     MA/11/1944 Date: 10 November 2011 Received: 10 November 2011

 

APPLICANT:	Sainsbury's Supermarkets & D K Holdings
LOCATION:	GMS & D K HOLDINGS SITE AT, STATION APPROACH, STAPLEHURST, MAIDSTONE, KENT, TN12 0QN
PARISH:	Staplehurst
PROPOSAL:	Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide new (Use Class A1) food store with associated car parking, landscaping and access in accordance with Design and Access Statement; Planning Statement; Retail Statement; Employment Land Report; Transport Assessment and Travel Plan; Tree Report; Flood Risk Assessment; Green Wall Feasibility Study; Habitat Survey; Report on Community Engagement; Renewable and Energy Efficiency Report; plans numbered CHQ.08.8389 - PL10; CHQ.08.8389 - PLO1; CHQ.08.8389 - PL03; CHQ.08.8389 - PL08; CHQ.08.8389 - PL07; 845 - 01; CHQ.08.8389 - PL02 as received on the 10 November 2012 and cumulative retail assessment and cumulative highway assessment as submitted on the 20 July 2012.
AGENDA DATE:   CASE OFFICER:	10th January 2013   Chris Hawkins

 

The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:

 

·                It is a departure from Policy ED2 of the Development Plan.

·      Staplehurst Parish Council requested that it be brought to Planning Committee.

 

1.      POLICIES

 

·         Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000:  ED2 (viii), T13, ENV6, ENV49, R1, R2, R18 (viii)

·         South East Plan 2009: BE4, RE3

·         Draft Core Strategy 2011: CS1, CS4, CS6, CS7, CS8,
Village Design Statement:  N/A

·         National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF); Ministerial Planning for Growth Letter; Practice guidance on need, impact and the sequential approach (December 2009). 

 

2.      HISTORY

 

MA/91/0435 - Reposition of crane and hoist with access doorway to existing building. Approved.

 

MA/91/0224 - Alterations & extensions to existing factory premises with associated office and storage areas. Approved.

 

         MA/80/2078          - Factory extension, light machine tool manufacture. Approved.

 

         MA/77/1561          - Factory with ancillary offices. Approved.

 

3.      CONSULTATIONS

 

3.1       Staplehurst Parish Council were consulted and made the following comments:

 

3.1.1    ‘After much discussion Councillor John Kelly proposed, seconded by Councillor Green and agreed unanimously to recommend APPROVAL with the following conditions/request for further consideration:- 

 

(1)        That consideration be given to the location of the bus stops and provision of lay-bys.

 

(1)        That staff car parking provision be increased but not at the expense of customer parking.  MBC is requested to reconsider its standards applied to staff car parking.

 

(2)        The footpath to the south side of Station Approach to be improved along its full length from Station Road junction to Lodge Road.

 

(3)        The siting of the pedestrian crossing needs to be revisited as it is considered too close to Fishers Road junction.

 

(4)        Section 106 Agreement to be negotiated with the Parish Council with reference to its approved list (to be submitted with this response).

 

(5)        The store should sell primarily food with no pharmacy.

 

(6)        Liaison with other businesses in Lodge Road should take place regarding delivery times to the store to reduce traffic conflicts.

 

(7)        Signage on the roof of the building is considered unacceptable and should be redesigned to be more discreet and below roof height.

 

(8)        Highways issues need to be reconsidered.  Yellow Box areas for Market Street and Fishers Road are recommended together with extending the 30 mph gateway on the A229 to north of George Street.  Improved speed warning signs and interactive signs to advise of queues ahead are considered necessary.  Removal of the proposed “pinch-point” north of the railway was requested.

 

(9)        A free bus service to serve local villages such as Frittenden (that had no commercial bus service) would be appreciated.

 

(10)     Light pollution and landscaping concerns were expressed.  It would be appreciated if the local impact of the proposals could be checked and improved upon.

 

(11)     The size of the store as proposed is considered to be acceptable.  The net retail floorspace should not be increased or reduced from the proposed 19,000 square feet in accordance with the guidelines at PPS6 3.31.  In particular, no mezzanine floors for sales space should be added to the building in future.

 

3.1.2    Councillors requested that this application be referred to Maidstone Borough Council Planning Committee.’

 

3.2         Maidstone Borough Council Landscape Officer was consulted and made the following comments:

 

3.2.1    ‘There is generally no objection to this proposal on landscape grounds.   However, the ‘Tree Removal, Retention & Protection’ plan produced by Arthur Amos associates, drawing no. 845-02 revision A, dated 06/07/11, shows that there is likely to be some disturbance within the proposed location for tree protective fencing around trees 15 to 22.  To ensure any potential disruption is minimised an arboricultural method statement should be provided in accordance with BS5837: 2005. This should include a methodology covering any removal of hard surfacing and cultivation in the vicinity of existing trees to be retained.

 

3.2.2    It is, therefore, recommended that on landscape/arboricultural grounds the application should be approved with standard landscape conditions, together with an additional condition requiring the submission of an arboricultural method statement in accordance with BS5837: 2005 as detailed above.’

 

3.3         Maidstone Borough Council Spatial Policy Team were consulted and raised no objection to the proposal. As much of the comments raised relate to the principle of development, and in particular the loss of land allocated for economic development, their comments have been integrated into the main body of the report. The comments received highlight the following three matters are the principal planning policy issues:

 

·         The application sites are identified for B1/B2 use in the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan.

·         The availability of sequentially preferable alternative sites for the proposed supermarket.

·         The  impact of the proposed supermarket on Staplehurst village centre and other identified retail centres.

 

The comments are concluded by stating:

 

3.3.1    ‘Regarding the presumption in favour of sustainable development, in this case the development plan is not considered ‘absent, silent or out of date’.  The application site is the subject of a specific policy designation to retain employment uses. Further, the Council’s emerging approach in the Core Strategy is directing the retention and enhancement of existing employment sites in the Rural Service Centres, of which Staplehurst is one.

 

3.3.2    The thrust of ED2 is to retain suitable sites for B class uses.  The proposal results in net loss of B class floorspace.  This would need to be provided elsewhere based on Council’s employment land projections. It has not been definitively demonstrated that sites cannot be retained although the state of market indicates that there are other available site for a firm wanting to locate to Staplehurst in the short to medium term.  The proposed supermarket use in its place does not accord with Policy ED2.

 

3.3.3    The proposed store would have an impact on existing stores. The evidence on the significance of the impact is not conclusive, although the RTP report indicates that there is no evidence that stores will close as a consequence. Assessment of the impacts on Staplehurst centre suggest that its vitality and viability will be reduced ‘slightly’. It would seem likely that some shoppers currently using the shops in the centre will be diverted to the new store, including for ‘top up’ shopping. Actions which would help to sustain the attractiveness of the centre (such as environmental improvements) could help to mitigate this effect. The new store will add to local consumer choice.

 

3.3.4    Overall it is not considered that the evidence points to an impact of such severity to constitute a ‘significant adverse’ impact which is the test of NPPF. 

 

3.3.5    The proposal will add to number and diversity of jobs in Staplehurst.  This is regarded as particularly important in larger villages such as Staplehurst where the range job of opportunities is inevitably more limited. 

 

3.3.6    Further, the proposals will benefit the operation of an established Staplehurst business (D K Holdings) and will expand Staplehurst’s range of  facilities and thereby help to further support its function as a service centre.  Additionally, the provision of a supermarket will help reduce the need for longer distance trips to larger supermarkets elsewhere.

 

3.3.7    In this case, it is considered that the balance of considerations weigh in favour of approval of both applications

 

3.3.8    It is recommended that the implementation of any consents are linked, by means of a legal agreement or otherwise, to ensure completion of new factory for D K Holdings before the redevelopment of the existing buildings’.

 

3.4         Maidstone Borough Council Environmental Health were consulted on the application and raised no objections subject to the imposition of the suitable conditions.

 

3.5         Maidstone Borough Council Economic Development were consulted and made the following comments:

 

3.5.1    ‘DK Holdings is an established manufacturing business of over 50 years and employs around 110 people according to my records. As such it is a significant employer in the Maidstone area and one of only around 60 businesses in the Borough of this size out of a population of around 7000 businesses. As the national economy enters into a double dip recession the opportunity to raise investment capital, win new business and grow becomes more challenging for many businesses. For the Borough to remain prosperous it must retain existing businesses and jobs, remove barriers to their growth and create the right conditions for economic development. It is essential that in the first instance businesses that are already located here, employing local people with local supply chains in place, are supported where appropriate.  The application will enable DK Holdings to operate from modern, purpose built premises, consolidate their operations to become more efficient and position it to expand.

 

3.5.2    Central Government (Department for Business Innovation and Skills) values manufacturers as set out in the “Plan for Growth” and continues to invest in the Manufacturing Advisory Service and considers international trade and investment as a driver for UK’s economic recovery. With 50% of DK Holdings sales exported overseas this is a company that should be supported.’

         

3.6         Kent Highway Services were consulted and made the following comments:

 

3.6.1    ‘I refer to the above named planning application for a new Sainsbury food store on land off Station Road in Staplehurst replacing the existing industrial (B2) use.

 

3.6.2    Access to the development is to be made via a new mini roundabout to the south of the junction of the A229 Station Road/Station Approach/Market Street. Deliveries would be made via Station Approach. The trip rates and traffic generation methodology have been accepted and capacity assessments have been made on the existing A229 Station Road/Station Approach/Market Street junction and the proposed mini roundabout. The results indicate that the proposal would not be detrimental to highway capacity. A safety audit has been completed on the proposed mini roundabout junction and this is acceptable.

 

3.6.3    Additional highway works are proposed and these include the provision of pedestrian refuges on the northern and western arm of the mini roundabout, a puffin crossing to the south of the mini roundabout, bus stop improvements (the provision of new shelters and real time bus information), a gateway feature provided on the northern boundary of the village, a puffin crossing in Marden Road and a footway/cycleway link. The applicant is required to provide these works as part of a S278 Agreement, all details to be agreed with KCC Highways.

 

3.6.4    Additionally a Travel Plan has been prepared and a monitoring fee of £5000 is required. Details of the Travel Plan shall be approved by KCC Highways prior to any beneficial occupation of the development and this shall include details of the incentives to be provided to encourage the use of public transport by staff, including discounted public transport travel.

 

3.6.5    Parking is proposed for 171 cars, including disabled spaces and parent/child spaces with additional colleague parking provided and a car park management strategy is to be implemented. This is considered to be acceptable. A taxi pick up point is provided adjacent the store frontage, 21 cycle spaces are proposed together with an electric car charging facility.

 

3.6.6    A free shuttle bus service is to be provided for customers for a minimum of five years from the date of opening, serving the local area and details of this should be agreed with the local planning authority prior to any beneficial occupation of the development.

 

3.6.7    I can confirm that subject to the above I do not wish to raise objection to this application subject to the imposition of suitable safeguarding conditions.’

 

3.7         Kent County Council Archaeology were consulted and raised no objections subject to the imposition of a suitable condition requiring a watching brief to be undertaken.

 

3.8         Kent County Council Ecology were consulted and raised no objections to this proposal subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a watching brief to be provided on site.

 

3.9         Kent Police Authority were consulted and no comments have been received.

 

3.10      The Environment Agency were consulted and raised no objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of suitable safeguarding conditions. These conditions are set out at the end of the report. 

 

3.11      Southern Water were consulted on the application and raised no objections to this application subject to the imposition of safeguarding conditions. These conditions are set out at the end of the report.

 

3.12      EDF Energy were consulted and raised no objections to the proposal.

 

4.         REPRESENTATIONS

 

4.1       Neighbouring occupiers were notified of the application and to date 68 letters of representation have been received. Of these letters, 48 are in favour of the development, and 18 object to the proposal. The points raised within the letters of support are summarised below:

 

·         The villagers would benefit from a new store as it would reduce the need to travel into Maidstone or elsewhere to other larger stores.

·         Staplehurst is too large not to have a facility of this nature.

·         The proposal would create a significant number of jobs.

 

4.2       The main points of concern raised within the objections are summarised below:

                          

·         The noise from the car park would have a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring occupiers.

·         The proposal would have a detrimental impact upon existing shops within the village centre.

·         The proposal would be likely to generate unacceptable levels of traffic and congestion.

·         Impact upon value of neighbouring occupiers property.

·         The proposal would result in light pollution.

·         The proposal would result in noise and disturbance to existing neighbouring occupiers through its operation (deliveries etc).

·         Increased road traffic will result in structural damage to existing properties.

·         There would be a detrimental impact upon highway safety.

·         The proposal would not be permeable by foot from the railway station – this will discourage those using the station to utilise the store.

·         The proposal is not correctly orientated to make it accessible to other modes of public transport.

·         The pedestrian crossing would be outside a residential property, causing a build up of people outside this property.

·         The proposal would result in an increase in air pollution.

·         The proposal would create security concerns to the rear of the existing residential properties.

·         The proposal would change the character of the village.

·         The increase in litter that would occur due to the proposal.

·         There is not significant labour within Staplehurst to serve the supermarket.

·         The visual impact of the proposal within the village would be unacceptable.

·         The landscaping is unacceptable.

·         It will be more difficult for some residents to access and exit their driveways.

·         Concern is raised with the loss of the existing employment floorspace, and allocation.

·         Concern is also raised that no marketing exercise has been carried out by the applicants. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is no specific guidance in the Local Plan in relation to the scope of extent of such exercises, guidance is given in a recent study carried out for a London Borough (it is attached).

·         To summarise it sets out that evidence should be sought to justify the loss of industrial space to other land uses. 

·         It is stated that ‘it is not sufficient to argue that the jobs which may be created by the retail store, offset the lack of a marketing exercise.’  

 

4.3       Two further letters have also been received expressing no views on the application.

 

5.         CONSIDERATIONS

 

5.1       Background

 

5.1.1    This is a full application for planning permission for the erection of a new supermarket and provision of car parking following the relocation of the existing DK Holdings building currently on site. The application was initially submitted to the Authority on the 10 November 2011, with addition information requested and submitted during the life of the application, relating to cumulative impact and the potential S106 contributions.

 

5.1.2    Shortly after this application was submitted, the Authority received an application (MA/12/0232) on behalf of Tescos for a new supermarket at the land that currently contains Staplehurst railway station car park. This application would not only see the redevelopment of this site, but also the provision of a new station car park to the north of the railway line. These proposals all formed one full planning application.

 

5.1.3    Maidstone Borough council has sought a legal opinion on the merits of hearing the planning applications separately or together, and it was concluded that it would be most appropriate for Members to be able to hear both applications at the same meeting. However, in order for both applications to be determined on one evening, both applicants have been required to provide us with cumulative impact assessments, both in terms of highways impact and retail impact. All information has now been submitted, and as such, both applications are able to be determined.

 

5.1.4    In terms of the applications, an officer recommendation is given on each proposal, and it is suggested that each application is presented and discussed prior to a determination of either application. As such, on each application conditions and reasons for refusal are appended, which could be used, should Members disagree with the recommendations. These are for the purposes of Members being able to make a decision on the evening of Planning Committee, not ‘options’ per se – the recommendations have been fully considered, with all material considerations balanced fully, and carefully.   The applicants of the Tesco scheme have requested a side-by-side analysis of each of the two schemes and within each report there is an assessment of the main aspects of the schemes.  This should not be used as a substitute for reading the full reports.

 

5.2       Site Description

 

5.2.1    The application site is located within the village confines of Staplehurst, within the northern part of the village. The site is allocated by the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan (2000) for employment purposes (Policy ED2 (viii)) and for vehicles sales and showrooms (Policy R18 (viii)).

 

5.2.2    At present the site contains a factory for DK Holdings, a company that manufactures tools for stone production. The existing building is two storey, of brick built construction, with part of the building provided with a shallow pitched roof, and part flat roof. The existing GMS building has a width of 59 metres, and a depth of 49metres, with a height fronting on to Station Road of 7.5metres. This building is set back between 14 and 16metres from the edge of the highway (A299). To the front of this building is an area of car parking set behind a hedge, which wraps around the corner into Station Approach. Vehicular access into this site is served from Station Approach, and is currently approximately 20metres in from the junction. There are two further buildings within this application site, one of which faces onto Station Approach. This building is set back approximately 11metres from the edge of the highway. The building is 28metres in width, and 49metres deep, and has a height fronting the highway of 6.6metres. This building is currently used by DK Holdings. The building behind this is also used by DK Holdings, and has a depth of 60metres, and a width of 29metres. This building has a maximum height of 6.4metres. It is proposed that these buildings be demolished to allow for the construction of the supermarket, and associated car park.

 

5.2.3    The site is bound to the north by Station Approach Road, which in turn leads into the Lodge Road Industrial Estate. Staplehurst railway station lies to the north of the highway, with a large open air car park immediately opposite the application site. It should be noted that a full planning application (reference number MA/12/0232) has been submitted by ‘Tescos’ for this land to the north to erect a 1,795 sqm store (new sales), car park and petrol filling station. Part of the application is also for the provision of a 660 space car park to the north of the railway line. This planning application was submitted on the 14 February 2012.

 

5.2.4    Immediately to the south of the application site is the commercial property, ‘the Cuttin’.  The neighbouring property to this (to the south) is Roberts Cottage, which is a residential property, set back from the road by approximately 17metres. Station Road (A229) then continues southwards towards the village centre with a predominately residential character.

 

5.2.5    There is an existing bus stop (with shelter) on the A229, upon the western side of the road. In addition, there is a low hedge (approx 800mm) on the junction of the A229 and Station Approach Road  

 

5.2.6    At present there is no significant landscaping within the application site, save for a few small self seeded trees, and the hedge that bounds the site to the north and east.

 

5.2.7    To the west of the application site is the land where the new factory building is proposed. This building would be a functional design, and would provide enhanced factory facilities for DK Holdings. Beyond this land is a large distribution centre (by some distance the largest building within the trading estate).

 

5.2.8    To the east of the application site, across the A229, is the Railway Tavern public house which has large car park on its northern side. To the north of the car park is an existing newsagents, which has a bus stop serving the Cranbrook bound bus service.

 

5.2.9    In terms of its location, Staplehurst is approximately 15km from Maidstone, 5km from Marden, 6km to Headcorn, 9km to Cranbrook and 15km to Hawkhurst. In terms of public transport provision, buses run once an hour from Staplehurst to Maidstone (and to Cranbrook) from the bus stops opposite the application site, on the A229, and trains run to Ashford and London every 30 minutes during the day (with increased frequency during peak hours).     

 

5.3       Proposal

 

5.3.1    The proposal is a full planning application for the erection of a new foodstore (A1 use) upon the land currently occupied by DK Holdings and GMS.

 

5.3.2    The proposed supermarket would have an internal floor area (sales) of 1,784 sq m (19,203 sq ft), and a gross external area of 3,384 sq m (36,425 sq ft). This gross area would comprise of 2,975 sq m (32,023 sq ft) at ground floor and 409 sq m (4,402 sq ft) at first floor. The ground floor would consist of the main sales area (including delicatessen and bakery) and back up areas including ambient and cold storage and the unloading bay. The first floor would accommodate the staff facilities. The store would have a maximum width (east to west) of 73metres, and a maximum depth of 52 metres. The highest point of the proposal would be 7.8metres from ground level.

 

5.3.3    An application for a new factory for DK Holdings was submitted alongside this application (MA/11/1943). This has now been permitted and provides for a new 3,044sqm factory building for them on a currently undeveloped part of its site. The proposed new building is for B2 floorspace which Policy ED2 specifies as a suitable use for the area. Taking the two applications together, the following changes in B class floorspace would result:

 

	B2 (D K Holdings)	B8 (GMS)	All B class
11/1944	- 3,335sqm	-3,069sqm	- 6,404sqm
11/1943	+ 3,044sqm	nil	+ 3,044sqm
Overall position	- 291 sqm	- 3,069sqm	- 3,360sqm

 

            Table 1 (change in floorspace)

 

5.3.4    The overall loss of B2 floorspace across the two proposals is marginal. Further, the two D K Holdings factory buildings are being replaced with a modern building fitting the firm’s requirements. The stated benefits to the company relate to operational efficiency and cost savings (utilities, maintenance) as well as the potential opportunity to broaden the firm’s product range and to re-organise factory equipment.  However, this should be balanced against the loss of about 3360sqm of B class floorspace at the Station Road location. What needs to be acknowledge however is the loss of allocated land as a result of this proposal – i.e. not just the amount of existing floor space being lost, but the potential floor space. Due to the erection of a supermarket, there would be a large portion of the allocation ‘lost’ and this will not be replaced until further allocations are made. The balance therefore has to be made as to whether this would result in a damaging impact upon the strategy of the Authority, and the vitality of the village and outlying areas. It is my opinion that the loss of this potential floor space is unlikely to impact upon either as it has not been developed out fully since the adoption of the Local Plan in 2000, despite numerous planning applications being approved. I do not raise an objection on this basis. 

 

5.3.5    The proposal would also include the provision of a new roundabout at the point of access into the site, located within the A229, with a new car park, provided with 171 car parking spaces (including 10 disabled spaces, 7 parent and child spaces, and 10 staff parking spaces). It is also proposed that 28 cycle spaces be provided for customers and 14 cycle spaces for staff. This car park would have internal landscaping, with the provision of tree planting and low level shrubs. The applicants have proposed the inclusion of a ragstone wall at the access point into the site, and within the car park.  

 

5.3.6    The proposed building would be provided with timber cladding, white cladding panels, and a significant level of glazing within the car park elevation. Louvres are proposed to be placed upon the corner of the building above the vertical timber boarding. Illustratively, advertisements are shown to be located upon the corner at the junction of the A229 and Station Approach Road, and upon the front elevation facing the car park.

 

5.3.7    Whilst the proposal would see the loss of the existing employment within the GMS building, which employs six staff, (the owner of this company informs us that he intended to wind up his business irrespective of this proposal, as he is coming to his retirement age) it would create approximately 150 jobs within the supermarket. Within supermarkets, this tends to be approximately 1/3 full time, and 2/3 part time – although this would be determined once the store was operational. Within a comparable (albeit slightly larger store) that has recently opened, the staff profile was as follows:

 

·         9 managerial roles;

·         11 team leaders:

·         11 HR and administrational roles;

·         17 on counters and preparation;

·         102 upon the shop floor and within the back of house.

 

            The current and expected position on jobs is set out below.

 

	Existing	Proposed
GMS	6	0
Sainsbury’s	0	150
D K Holdings	80	80
Total	86	230

 

Table 2 (number of jobs)

 

5.3.8    It is proposed that the store would incorporate a number of sustainable energy elements, that would enable the development to achieve a BREEAM rating of ‘very good’.

 

5.3.9    The car park would see the provision of some internal landscaping both between the spaces themselves and along the side boundary, with the nearest residential properties. This landscaping has been fully considered by the Council’s Landscape Officer. The landscaping would include the provision of 9 new specimen trees within the car park, together with a minimum of 15 specimen trees along the western boundary. A cluster of tree planting is proposed within the south-eastern corner of the application site. Tree planting is also proposed on either side of the access into the site, which would frame the highway at this point. The hedge that runs along the highway is sought to be retained (as this falls outside of the applicants control).

 

5.3.10  In terms of the hard landscaping proposed, block paving is proposed at the point of access, that would give pedestrians greater priority as they enter the site. In terms of the rest of the site, the car parking would be constructed of tarmacadem, although all paving within the site is to be permeable. 

 

5.3.11  The applicants are proposing a number of measures to improve the character and appearance of the village centre. These measures, provided through a S106 agreement would include:

 

·         Improvements (to be confirmed with the Parish Council and Local Planning Authority subject to delegated powers to approve) to the centre of Staplehurst, in particular, public realm improvements to ‘The Parade’ and the surrounding area.

·         The provision of a ‘community bus’ that would transport customers from both the village and more outlying areas to the store.

 

5.3.12  Both Officers and the Parish Council have been involved in discussions with regards to the Heads of Terms proposed. Following these discussions the applicants have submitted a draft S106 agreement which agrees the following:

 

·         Not to occupy the building until the new factory building (permitted under MA/11/1943) has been constructed;

·         To provide a contribution of £50,000 towards the enhancement of the existing village centre as outlined above;

·         The provision of a community bus that would transport customers from both the village and the more outlying areas to the store; 

·         Provide a Travel Plan Monitoring Fee of £5,000. 

 

5.4       Supporting Documents

 

5.4.1    In addition to the submitted plans and drawings the application is accompanied by the following documents:

 

·         Design and Access Statement

·         Planning and Retail Statement

·         Transport Assessment and Travel Plan

·         Renewable Energy and Efficiency Statement

·         Flood Risk Assessment

·         Public Consultation Report

·         Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Report

·         Local Air Quality Assessment

·         BREEAM Assessment

·         Noise Impact Assessment

·         Lighting Statement

·         Tree Survey

·         Green Wall feasibility study

·         Village Health Check

·         Employment Statement

 

5.4.2    These documents can be viewed via the planning pages on the Council website.

 

5.4.3    Following the initial submission, the proposal has been subject to assessments by independent Retail Consultants (Roger Tymms Associates) appointed by the Council. Additional information was also submitted during the course of the application, that included:

 

·         Further details on the sequential test for identifying the application site

·         A statement on how the release of the National Planning Policy Framework impacts upon this proposal.

·         Estimated costs for selected S106 improvements.  

   

5.5       Principle of Development/Planning Policy

 

1)  Planning for Growth

 

5.5.1    On 23 March 2011 when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Budget, the Minster for Decentralisation, Greg Clark, delivered a written statement. This statement sets out the steps the Government expects all local planning authorities to take (with immediate effect) in order to rebuild Britain’s economy. Relevant extracts from the statement are given below as they are material to the consideration of this application.

 

            The Government’s top priority in reforming the planning system is to promote sustainable economic growth and jobs. Government’s clear expectation is that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be ‘yes’, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national planning policy.

 

            The Chancellor has today set out further detail on our commitment to introduce a strong presumption in favour of sustainable development in the forthcoming (now released) National Planning Policy Framework, which will expect local planning authorities to plan positively for new development; to deal promptly and favourably with applications that comply with up-to-date plans and national planning policies; and wherever possible to approve applications where plans are absent, out of date, silent or indeterminate.  

 

5.5.2    The statement goes on to advise that:       

 

When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of sustainable development. Where relevant – and consistent with their statutory obligations – they should therefore:

 

(i)      Consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust growth after the recent recession;

(i)      Take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for key sectors, including housing;

(ii)    Consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may, where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity);

(iii)  Be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date;

(iv)   Ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.   

 

In determining planning application, local planning authorities are obliged to have regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate weight to the need to support economic recovery, that application that secure sustainable growth are treated favourably, and that they can give clear reasons for their decisions.

 

5.5.3    Finally, the statement concludes by saying:

 

Benefits to the economy should, where relevant, be an important consideration when other development-related consents are being determined, including heritage, environmental, energy, and transport consents. The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and the Secretary of State for Transport have consequently agreed that to the extent it accords with the relevant statutory provisions and national policies, decisions on these other consents should place particular weight on the potential economic benefits offered by an application. They will reflect this principle in relevant decisions that come before them and encourage their agencies and non departmental bodies to adopt the same approach for the consents for which those other bodies are directly responsible.

 

1)  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

 

5.5.4    The National Planning Policy Framework, which was released in March 2012 (after the application was submitted), seeks to promote sustainable development, both within town centre locations, and rural areas. The Framework sets out the three key ‘dimensions’ to sustainable development, which set out the roles that ‘planning’ should perform:

 

·         An economic role – with development contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation.

 

·         A social role – with development supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of the present and future generations, and by creating a high quality built environment with accessible local services that reflect the communities need.

 

·         An environmental role – with development contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and as part of this helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution and to adapt to climate change. 

 

5.5.5    The NPPF sets out that the Government expects Local Authorities to support the delivery of sustainable development, although does highlight that this requirement does not simply override the existing policies within the Development Plan. The Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan was adopted in 2000, however, the policies within were ‘saved’ (and thus revisited) in 2007. The South East Plan was adopted in 2009 – however, the fact that the government intends to revoke this document is a strong material consideration. It is on this basis that I consider the aims of the NPPF to carry significant weight in the determination of this planning application.

 

5.5.6    The NPPF states that:

 

            The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meet the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future.

 

            The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.

 

5.5.7    Whilst ‘significant weight’ should be given to delivering economic growth, the NPPF does not state that this should override existing planning policy, but that it should be a strong material consideration.

 

5.5.8    In terms of addressing the rural economy, the NPPF requires for planning policies to support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. In order to promote a strong rural economy local plans are required to (relevant to this application):

 

·         Support sustainable growth and the expansion of all types of businesses and enterprise in rural areas, both through the conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings;

           

·         Promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship.

 

5.5.9    The NPPF also requires that a sequential test be carried out for town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Development Plan. This is the same requirement as set out within Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4) prior to the publication of the NPPF, and sets out that local planning authorities should require planning applications for main town centre uses to be located town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. In addition, the NPPF states that when considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre, and that flexibility should be given on issues such as format and scale.

 

5.5.10  The NPPF does give some support for a development of this nature, insofar as it does encourage the delivery of sustainable economic development – to which I consider this proposal to be classified. Although I consider this to be tempered by the need to provide specific information on the impact upon the existing centre, and the need to demonstrate that more sequentially preferable sites have been considered. The NPPF does not give the ‘green light’ to this proposal, rather it encourages local planning authorities to look more carefully at their allocations, and to promote growth in the short term, should it not interfere with their longer term objectives of delivering, sustainable economic development. 

 

2)  Development Plan Policies

 

5.5.11  Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that all planning applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The current Development Plan comprises the saved policies of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 (saved in 2007) and the South East Plan 2009. The Government has indicated however that it intends to abolish the South East Plan and this Statement of intent should be regarded as a material consideration.   

 

5.5.12  The applicant site is located within land allocated for B1 and B2 employment uses within the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan (2000). Clearly, this proposal would not fall within either of these use classes - being A1 retail - and as such would be a departure from the Development Plan. Whilst clearly there is an allowance for local planning authorities to depart from the policies within this plan, due regard, and weight has to be given to all material considerations, with overriding justification required to effectively ‘tip the balance’ to go against an established policy. The policy in question reads:

 

Policy ED2: The Borough Council identifies the following locations (list provided) as designated areas of economic activity or areas with planning consent for economic development (the site is question in then identified and being provided for use classes B1 and B2).  

 

Planning permission will not be granted to redevelop or use vacant business, industrial, storage or distribution sites or premises for non-employment purposes unless the retention of the site or premises for employment use has been fully explored without success.

 

5.5.13  In order to understand if it is possible to depart from the established Development Plan, it is firstly necessary to understand why the designation was given in the first instance. The allocation of the land was fully considered within the Inspector’s report of November 1999 where it was felt that this would be a suitable site to retain such employment uses. Since the adoption of the Local Plan in 2000, the Council has sought to continually review the level of land suitable for employment purposes within the Borough, with the most recent Employment Land Review Update being completed in July 2011.

 

5.5.14  On this matter the Spatial Policy team have raised a number of comments on this matter. They summarise that with respect to alternative proposals on designated employment land, the NPPF states that “where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.” (paragraph 22).

 

5.5.15  In response, the Council’s evidence indicates that there is a future need for B2 floorspace for which the site is allocated.  There is also a substantial measured need for B8 floorspace which is the current use of the GMS building which will be lost through this proposed redevelopment. In the longer term any loss of floorspace as a result of these proposals would need to be compensated for with provision elsewhere through the LDF and planning applications.

 

5.5.16  Balancing against this longer term need, there are a number of units available in the immediate locality for a firm wishing to locate to Staplehurst.  This is an indication that short to medium needs could be met locally. There is some evidence that the age and construction of the GMS building would not make it immediately attractive for a new occupant although the site has not been marketed for sale.

 

5.5.17  Market indicators point to the prospect of this site being needed for B2/B8 use being a longer term one. In addition it is apparent that there is market demand for a supermarket in the locality; Tesco has submitted an application for a store on a nearby site.

 

 

5.5.18  The Employment Land Review Update indicates that the Borough (at the time of the report) had 10,761 sqm of vacant Industrial floor space, and 39,686 sqm of vacant warehouse floor space. Whilst it is important for any Borough to have a level of vacancy, to enable existing businesses to expand and contract, and to encourage inward investment without waiting for new buildings to be constructed, this is nevertheless a significant amount.

 

5.5.19 It is also acknowledged that much of the land that has been allocated for employment purposes within the Local Plan has remained undeveloped, even though the plan is now in excess of 11 years old. Indeed, land within the allocation in close proximity of this site has remained undeveloped during this plan period. This indicates that there may be a need to show an element of flexibility in the right locations bearing in mind the age of the policy, and the permissions that have been permitted elsewhere. Certainly the NPPF encourages a more flexible approach.

 

5.5.20  Whilst at present the Council’s adopted Development Plan is the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan (2000), it is at currently formulating the Core Strategy, and has gone out to public consultation on the first draft. Within this Core Strategy Staplehurst is identified as a Rural Service Centre (RSC) which means that it is identified as a settlement that is able to accommodate some future growth. Within this (draft) policy it states that Council will retain and enhance existing employment sites, and encourage new employment opportunities. The policy also states that the Council will ‘resist the loss of local shops and facilities, whilst supporting new retail development to meet local need.’ The applicants have been able to identify that there is both a quantitative and qualitative need for such a provision already within the village. This has been ratified by the Council’s retail consultants.

 

5.5.21  Whilst the Core Strategy has limited weight as it is at a relatively embryonic stage, it is likely that Staplehurst would be retained as a centre that can accommodate future growth. Overall I do not consider that the Sainsburys scheme would prejudice the aims of this draft document in its current form but it should be borne in mind that Staplehurst is expected to cater for future class B uses as well as economic development such as a new retail schemes.

 

5.5.22  The relocation of the DK Holdings building to the adjacent site (which also falls within the employment allocation) would be controlled through a Section 106 legal agreement. Nevertheless the Sainsburys scheme would lead to a loss of class B floorspace and the potential to expand class B uses on the application site land.  It would conflict with the terms of policy ED2 as it would be for a non-employment purpose (employment purposes in ED2 referring to class B uses) and the retention of the site and premises for employment purposes has not been fully explored.  Furthermore, in terms of NPPF advice it cannot be said that there is no reasonable prospect of it being used for employment use in the future (accepting for the purposes of this report that a retail use is not a traditional employment use). It therefore has to be considered whether these factors would prejudice the long term aspirations for this site, and for the Borough as a whole and what weight should attach to them.

 

5.5.23  There have been a number of planning applications approved for the extension of the Lodge Road Industrial Estate, with many remaining unimplemented. This is despite the site having been allocated for such a purpose for in excess of 18 years (it was allocated in the previous Local Plan). Whilst clearly a relatively successful site – with many well established businesses - there is, and has been for a number of years, opportunities for growth which have yet to have been taken. With the existing economic climate borne in mind, I do not envisage these alternative, allocated sites coming forward in the near future, that would saturate the locality, and see a shortfall in B1 and B2 provision.

 

5.5.24  In addition to the land at Staplehurst, on a Borough wide basis, there have been a number of allocated employment sites that have been permitted for alternative forms of development – in particular a number have seen housing permitted. Whilst there are differences between this application and those – insofar as this allocation did have  existing uses upon it, I do consider that it demonstrates that the provisions made in 1999 (when they were considered by the Inspector) could now be considered to be worthy of review, and as required by the NPPF, will be reviewed in the near future as part of the ongoing Core Strategy work.

 

5.5.25  The Local Plan identifies in policy ED2 the Station Road location as one for use classes B1 and B2.  The Local Plan is anxious that the area continues to remain available for “economic development uses” in order to maintain a variety of accommodation and to reduce pressure for fresh allocations. However, since the Local Plan was written the NPPF has  defined “economic development” as including a retail scheme.  The NPPF has made it clear that LPAs should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development.  Whilst there is conflict with policy ED2 and it was clearly not written with the NPPF in mind, the scheme would provide a substantial economic development.

 

5.5.26  A key consideration is that the proposal would see the creation of a significant number of jobs. It is proposed that approximately 150 jobs would be created as a result of this proposal, and whilst approximately two thirds of these would constitute part time employment, this is still a high number of jobs per square metre within an allocated employment site. To my mind, this is a significant benefit that this proposal would bring, and whilst the jobs created would not fall within the precise definition of ‘employment’ as set out within Policy ED2, the proposal does undeniably provide jobs, and a significant number. A further key consideration is that this site is deliverable and that these jobs are likely to come forward should planning permission be granted. I therefore take the view that the proposal is not such a significant departure from the policy as say housing, and it would also fall within the definition of ‘economic development’ as defined previously within PPS4 and now within the NPPF. So, whilst a departure from policy ED2, I consider the proposal would nonetheless bring benefits to the locality in terms of employment provision, irrespective of the ‘need’ that has been identified both Borough wide and within Staplehurst itself. 

 

5.5.27  There has been a number of planning permissions granted within the Borough for alternative uses within allocated employment sites. Whilst each of these have been determined on their own merits, I am of the view that this does indicate a ‘direction of travel’ in terms of the Council’s understanding of the success, and perhaps relevance of the now 12 year old land allocation policy.

 

5.5.28  I am therefore of the opinion that the principle of development of this site for a supermarket is acceptable within this allocated site, despite the loss of the land for B2/B8 uses, subject to all other material considerations being deemed acceptable. Whilst there is conflict with policy ED2, for the reasons I have detailed above, I consider it is appropriate to attach only limited weight to that conflict.

 

3)  Emerging Core Strategy

 

5.5.29  I have referred to the emerging Core Strategy above in the specific context of employment land and I now deal with it in more general terms. Whilst it remains at draft stage, with much of the work ongoing, due to the fact that it has now been through a public consultation, and that Members have had an opportunity to agree much of the background information, I consider it to be a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. This isn’t to suggest that it carries as much weight as the existing policies within the Development Plan, nor the NPPF; but it does need to be given some weight when in the determination of the application.

 

5.5.30  Within the Core Strategy, Staplehurst is identified as a Rural Service Centre (herein referred to as RSC). Staplehurst is acknowledged as being the largest RSC within the Borough in terms of population and size, and has a number of key services and facilities. The specific policy (CS4) that relates to RSC sets out that there will be:

 

·         A focus on new housing and employment development within or adjacent to village settlements, and to ensure that a mix of house types and tenures are provided;

·         Support applications for local needs housing on appropriate sites;

·         Retain an enhance existing employment sites and encourage new employment opportunities;

·         Resist the loss of local shops and facilities, whilst supporting new retail development to meet local need;

·         Ensure development assists with the creation of vibrant and sustainable communities;

·         Ensure that development does not cause harm to natural assets and that development is not located in areas liable to flooding. 

 

5.5.31  A report was given to the Cabinet to consider in July 2012, which set out the proposed consultation draft of the Core Strategy. Within this document, the housing projections for each rural service centre were provided as follows:

 

·         Harrietsham             315 dwellings

·         Headcorn                 190 dwellings

·         Lenham                             110 dwellings

·         Marden                    320 dwellings

·         Staplehurst              195 dwellings

 

(Those villages affected by this proposal are highlighted)

 

5.5.32  This report was agreed by Members, and as such the consultation draft was completed accordingly. I consider it important to acknowledge the proposed further growth of these villages – with Staplehurst, Marden and Headcorn all within the catchment area of this proposal. Whilst consultation is ongoing with this draft, it is unlikely that the numbers of units proposed will fall. As such, further expansion at these villages will clearly result in greater demand for convenience shopping to be provided within the locality.

 

4)  Sequential Sites Assessment

 

5.5.33  The NPPF requires a sequential test to be applied to applications for retail uses which are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date Local Plan (paragraph 24).  An impact assessment is required for such proposals (over a 2,500sqm threshold) to include:

 

·         The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre/centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and

·         The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to 5 years from when the application is made. (paragraph 26).

 

5.5.34  “Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused” (paragraph 27).

 

5.5.35  Although framed in the terms of PPS4, the Roger Tym & Partners retail report for the Council covers the points above.

 

5.5.36  The sequential test directs that retail uses should be located in town (or village) centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered (NPPF paragraph 24). The application site is an out of centre site according to the definition in Annex 2 of the NPPF.

 

5.5.37  According to the PPS4 Practice Guidance the area of search for alternative, sequentially preferable sites should be sites in existing centres within the catchment area of the proposal (paragraph 6.22). Staplehurst village centre is identified on the MBWLP Proposals Map and is subject to Policy R10.  The applicants have not identified any alternative sites within the centre.  It is the case that the centre is tightly defined, encompassing the existing retail units and associated service-type uses in the vicinity of The Parade. There is considered to be no reasonable prospect of this proposal being accommodated through the occupation or redevelopment of units in the village centre. There are also no known available and suitable sites at the edge of the centre.

 

5.5.38  This practice guide states that the sequential test should cover the whole catchment area that would be affected by the proposal. The application addresses all of the catchment area that would be affects this proposal, which stretches from Cranbrook in the South to the Linton crossroads to the north, and also includes the villages of Marden and Staplehurst.

 

5.5.39  The applicant has submitted a sequential sites assessment with the application. This identifies that the applicants have considered other sites both within the village and also within the catchment area. Within the village there are no sites of any significant scale to provide a suitable alternative to this site. This is the same conclusion that the applicants of the similar application (ref: MA/12/0232). The question is therefore whether the site being brought forward as part of this alternative application is a preferable site to this one in sequential terms.

 

5.5.40  This site is clearly an ‘out-of-centre’ location, although it is relatively well connected by means of public transport, but both a bus service that runs to the front of the site, and the railway station to the north of the site (although in excess of 300m from the entrance of the store). I am therefore of the opinion that neither store would offer the opportunity for linked trips. The Sainsbury’s supermarket would be slightly closer to the existing housing stock, and the village centre, whilst the Tesco store would be closer to the train station. To my mind, there is little to choose between the sites in terms of the sequential test and their accessibility by foot from the town centre & main residential areas, bus stops and train station. 

 

5.5.41  Outside of the village, again, I consider that there are no other alternative sites that would provide for a retail provision of this scale, without significant impact either upon the character of the locality, or with such good transport links as this application site. Whilst initial concerns were raised by the Council’s retail consultant, these have been addressed by the information that has now been submitted, which officers are satisfied are acceptable.

 

5.5.42  I therefore consider that the applicants have fully considered alternative sites to this, and that the sequential test has now been met.

 

5.6       Impacts on Character and Appearance of the Area

 

5.6.1    The character of the area is already a developed character on which there is urban activity but visually there would be a change in that the proposed store would bring development to the front of the application site with the car park provision on its southern side.  However, the visual change would not be a retrograde step or detrimental to the streetscene.  The existing buildings are unremarkable and to my mind the replacement building would be an enhancement to the character and appearance of the locality.

 

5.6.2    The mass of the building is considered acceptable, and this creates a more attractive entrance into the village, with the additional planting along the road frontage a positive feature.

 

5.6.3    The car parking would be located away from medium to long distance views from the public domain, and whilst lighting will be provided, which will have an impact upon the character of the area, this would be seen within a context of existing built form, and would be designed in such a way as to not result in significant glare.

 

5.6.4    I am therefore satisfied that the visual impact of this proposal would be acceptable, subject to the detailed design of the building being of the required high standard.

 

5.7       Design

 

5.7.1    The proposal would see the introduction of built form much closer to the highway than at present. The building would also effectively turn its back on the highway, with the main point of entry from the car park side (to the south of the store). As the building would be of a substantial scale, this would significantly alter the appearance of the locality. Through pre-application discussions, the matter of the design of the building has been addressed, with changes made to the fenestration that provides greater articulation, and increase the level of fenestration within the building.

 

5.7.2    Perhaps the key elevation of the building is that facing onto the junction of Station Road and Station Approach. This is a prominent junction and would act as very much a gateway into the village from over the railway bridge, when approaching along the A229 from the north. On this corner of the building, it is proposed to provide (vertical) timber cladding at ground floor level with glazing at first floor level, and (horizontal) timber louvres covering part of this glazing, providing an element of layering, and shadowing. A flat roof is proposed which would project from the wall by approximately 400mm, which would provide a suitable ‘top’ to the building.

 

5.7.3    The timber boarding is proposed to be continued along the A229 frontage with the building reducing in scale southwards. At its southernmost point the building would be single storey, with a projecting canopy, which follows the splay of the building.

 

5.7.4    The building would have a very functional form, however, that is not to say that it would appear as out of keeping, or to the detriment of the appearance of the locality. The materials used within the proposed building would be timber cladding, metal cladding, with an element of brickwork. Much of the elevation facing on to the car park would be provided with glazing, which would provide a lighter appearance.

 

5.7.5    I consider this to be a building that has been designed for its surroundings, rather than a standard design that could be replicated elsewhere and this is a factor in its favour in my view. Clearly some elements of the proposal are standard – the materials for example, but the design has been fully considered in order to address the corner of Station Approach and the A229.

 

5.7.6    The scale and form of the building are considered to be acceptable; it would not dominate the surroundings, nor would it be of a scale that would appear as squat or overtly horizontal. The detailing is also considered to be of an acceptable level, responding to the orientation of the site. I therefore raise no objections to the proposal on the grounds of design and consider that it would positively enhance the appearance of the streetscene and this particular gateway into and out of the village.               

 

5.8       Overview of Retail Provision in Locality

 

5.8.1    Staplehurst – Within the defined retail centre of Staplehurst is a Spar convenience store which has approximately 250 sqm of retail floor space, an off-licence (Murcatto), a greengrocer (Spuds and Buds), a newsagents (Martins). In addition to this, there are service outlets including a pharmacy, a post office, a bank, an estate agency, a hair salon, and a turf accountant.

 

5.8.2    Outside of the defined area there are additional retail outlets including an opticians, solicitors, public houses, and a butchers. I therefore consider that Staplehurst currently has a broad offer for local residents. However, it is noted that there is very little convenience floor space within the village itself – particularly for a village with a population of in excess of 4,000.

 

5.8.3    Headcorn – The village of Headcorn falls within the catchment area of the proposed store. This village is again well served by a variety of shops, however, there is limited convenience floorspace; the largest offer being within the Sainsbury’s Local which is approximately 275 sqm.

 

5.8.4    Cranbrook – Located approximately 8.5km from the centre of Staplehurst, Cranbrook contains a co-operative supermarket of approximately 1,600 sqm. This is the largest retail store within the catchment area.

 

5.8.5    Hawkhurst – Located approximately 14.5km from the centre of Staplehurst Hawkhurst contains a Tesco supermarket of approximately 850 sqm and a Budgens store of approximately 830 sqm (net sales).

 

5.8.6    Tenterden – The small town of Tenterden is 20km away from Staplehurst, and so would fall outside of the catchment area of the proposed supermarkets. However, due to the fact that there are two existing supermarkets – a Tesco (1,700sqm) and Waitrose (1,300 sqm) does draw in existing trade from the catchment area.

 

5.8.7    Maidstone – It is noted that the majority of residents within the Staplehurst area, and the catchment area of this store would currently undertake their convenience shopping within Maidstone, which lies 15km to the north of Staplehurst. The closest supermarket within Maidstone to Staplehurst is the Morrison’s on the Sutton Road. This has a sales area of 3,456 sqm, and has an extensive food offer, together with some non-food retail. There are a number of other stores within the town, including a Sainsbury’s, Tescos, and an Aldi store.    

 

5.9       Retail Impact

 

5.9.1    The proposal would see the creation of a new food store within an area where there is currently no significant provision of this nature. However, the village of Staplehurst does currently contain a relatively small retail area that is designated as a district/local centre by Policy R10 (xix) of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan (2000). This policy seeks to maintain these existing centres for retail purposes, and to resist development that would harm their vitality and viability. The policy then states that proposals for further Class A1 retail development will be permitted in, or immediately adjacent to existing district or local centres.

 

5.9.2    Policy R10 also allows for the provision of new district centres anchored by a convenience store or supermarket, particularly in areas deficient of such facilities, subject to the criteria set out within policies R1, R2, R11 and R15.

 

5.9.3    Policy R1 states that retail development will be permitted within defined urban and village area provided that the following criteria are met:

 

·         That arrangements for road access, parking and servicing of the land and buildings are adequate and that there are no highway objections;

·         That the development site is both easily and safely accessible by a reasonable choice of modes of transport and by people with disabilities;

·         That there is no significant detrimental impact upon neighbouring land uses or likely adverse effect on local living conditions.

 

5.9.4    Policy R2 is concerned with major retail proposals, which are defined as exceeding 500spm of gross floorspace, and states that they will be permitted in accordance with Policy R1, providing that the additional criteria are met:

 

·         That the proposed development meets the requirements and the trade potential of appropriate convenience, comparison or bulky goods sectors;

·         That a sequential approach to siting has been followed (i.e. that preference is given to town centre, district or local centres and the edge of centre sites before out-of-centre sites are proposed); and

·         That out-of-centre locations are chosen adjacent to existing out-of-centre and free standing retail development.

 

5.9.5    The Local Plan acknowledges the importance of local retail centres in meeting the essential day-to-day needs of local people, within easy walking distance of their homes. The district centre within Staplehurst currently contains a small convenience store (a ‘Spar’) as well as a bank, off licence, butchers, bakers, and hairdressers. This centre, known as ‘The Parade’ provides a strong local function, which enables top-up shops, and for a limited amount of services to be undertaken without the need to travel to larger nearby towns and villages. However, it is acknowledged that the provision within the village does not cater for the majority of the population of the village (and outlaying areas) to undertake their weekly shop. As such, the majority of inhabitants – some 98% of respondents – claim to travel to either Maidstone, or one of the surrounding towns/larger villages to undertake this shop.

 

5.9.6    Whilst a deficiency in convenience trading has been identified the village and the surrounding area, it is considered that this would be met by this proposal. It is clear that the retention rate within the catchment area is very low. The proposal would result in a greater retention of spend within the catchment area; which would impact greatest upon the existing stores within Maidstone (and surrounding area).

 

5.9.7    The Council has employed independent retail analysts who have appraised the retail impact assessment submitted with the application. The conclusion of this report is that the impact upon the village centre, and to the villages within the catchment area would be acceptable, and that the proposal would not lead to the failing of these areas. There would undoubtedly be some impact, however, this would be mitigated by the proposed public realm improvements, and enhancements to highways as proposed. It is suggested that the impact upon the stores within Staplehurst would be a reduction in approximately 5-7% of trade, which is not (according to appeal decisions) considered to cause significant harm to merit a refusal. Whilst this is not a defined benchmark, with each application judged on its own merits, there is no evidence that shops would close post impact. Consideration has been given to restricting the sale of certain goods within the store itself – for example restricting pharmaceutical sales. However, as the report indicates that the proposal would not result in a significant impact post opening on the centre, I do not consider it necessary in this instance. 

 

5.9.8    The information submitted with the application identifies the catchment area for the proposal which extends to include the identified centres at Headcorn, Marden and Coxheath and, outside the borough, Cranbrook. It also identifies the impact of the proposal upon Maidstone itself, not just in terms of convenience shopping, but comparison shopping, and the linked trips that this may generate. Whilst the proposal would clearly result in less linked trips, and a reduction in both comparison and convenience sales within the town, there is no evidence to suggest that this ‘shift’ would result in the closure of any existing stores, but rather the proposal would simply result in more sustainable shopping patterns.   

 

5.9.9    It is the case that the boundaries of centres within the borough, as for Staplehurst, are tightly drawn and there are no known available sites within or at the edge of these centres which could accommodate the proposal. To the best of my knowledge, there are no sequentially preferable sites which are suitable and available (NPPF paragraph 24) for the proposed development.

 

5.9.10  The technical aspects of the impact assessment are considered in the RTP report.  RTP conclude that there is both a qualitative and a quantitative need for the floorspace proposed (paragraphs 3.49 and 3.50). 

 

5.9.11  RTP report that the majority of the new store’s trade will be drawn from other large convenience stores outside the proposed store’s catchment area (paragraph 4.8). These are the stores where the majority of residents in the catchment area are currently doing their supermarket shopping.

 

5.9.12  The assessed percentage reductions to these store’s turnover is set out in the table below:

 

Stores Outside Catchment Area	Location	% impact on turnover @ 2016
Morrisons Maidstone	Out of centre	10%
Sainburys Maidstone	In centre	10%
Tesco, Grove Green	In centre	9%
Tesco Tovil	Out of centre	9%
Tesco Tenterden	Edge of centre	9%
Waitrose, Paddock Wood	In centre	5%

 

             Table 3 (impact of turnover)

 

5.9.13  RTP is unable to assess the significance of these changes to these stores’ turnover in the absence of information on benchmark turnovers.  RTP do conclude “we are not aware of any evidence, however, that any of these stores will close post impact.” (paragraph 4.15).

 

5.9.14  In terms of the stores within the catchment area, these are smaller, convenience-type shops. The applicants propose that only 6% of the proposed Sainsbury’s turnover will be diverted from stores within the catchment area. 

 

5.9.15  The assessed percentage reductions are set out below:

 

Stores Inside Catchment Area	% impact on turnover @ 2013	% impact on turnover @ 2016
Co op Cranbrook	6.7%	6.13%
Sainsbury’s Local Headcorn	7.28%	6.72%
Staplehurst centre	5.76%	5.2%

 

Table 4 (impact upon turnover) [taken from WYG Table 8]

 

5.9.16  RTP notes that “both the Sainsbury’s Local and the Co-op are currently under-trading and this will be exacerbated by 2016 if the new store opens” (paragraph 4.16).  RTP states that impacts of 5 – 7% are ‘fairly high for small stores’ (paragraph 4.30).

 

5.9.17  The key test in the NPPF is the second of those listed above; the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to 5 years from when the application is made.

 

5.9.18  It is clear that the proposal will have an impact on town centre trade, specifically on the identified stores in Staplehurst, Headcorn and Cranbrook centres as well as on the larger stores beyond the catchment. RTP conclude that there will be an impact on Headcorn and Cranbrook centres because of the reduced foodstore turnover and the reduced potential for linked trips, although there is no evidence that these store will close as a consequence of the proposed Sainsbury’s store opening (paragraph 4.22).

 

5.9.19  The NPPF test refers to impact on trade in the town centre and wider area. RTP’s critique highlights impact on a number of larger stores, some of which are in centre and some edge or out of centre.  There is no available evidence at this point that stores will close as a result. 

 

5.9.20  With respect to Staplehurst centre, RTP conclude “in our opinion, the proposal will reduce the vitality and viability of Staplehurst [town] centre slightly. The shops will still be trading at around benchmark levels however and there is currently a low vacancy rate, indicating that the centre is not fragile or vulnerable.  The proposal will improve consumer choice and the range and quality of the convenience offer” (paragraph 4.23).

 

5.9.21  The provision of a new foodstore at this location is acknowledged to be likely to result in more sustainable shopping patterns, and will also provide greater choice for the existing residents. It will however, be likely to result in less linked trips to Maidstone, which is unfortunate. There is also the possibility that some residents of southern Maidstone (i.e. the Coxheath/Linton/Loose Road areas) may consider the offer more desirable in Staplehurst by virtue of less traffic congestion. I consider it to be unlikely that the draw in this respect will be significant – as the car park is not of an excessive scale, and the offer in the store, due to its size would be significantly more limited that the existing stores within Maidstone. Nonetheless, I consider the benefits of providing a store at this location to outweigh any potential harm of less linked trips.

 

5.9.22  The applicants were also asked to complete a cumulative impact assessment of the proposals, should both this application, and application MA/12/0232 be permitted. This work demonstrated that whilst there would be a slightly larger impact of two stores being provided, these would effectively take trade from one another rather than from alternative stores, or the existing village centre. This ‘cannibalisation’ of trade would occur as the two stores would provide a similar offer, rather than an offer that a store twice the size would provide – so it is likely that shoppers would use one or the other for their weeks shop. The size of the proposed individual stores would dictate the draw that they had – not the overall size of the offer. Both applicants demonstrated a similar impact should both proposals be built. 

 

5.9.23  I am therefore satisfied that this proposal could be provided without any significant adverse impact upon the existing retail centres within the catchment area. Whilst there would be some impact upon the existing stores outside of the catchment area, the overall benefits of this proposal, which include more sustainable patterns of shopping, and the jobs created would outweigh any harm that might occur to these existing facilities. There is no indication that any existing retailers would close post impact in any event. Neither is there any evidence to suggest that there will be any significant adverse impact on any existing, committed or planned investment in any centre. I therefore conclude that this proposal is acceptable in terms of the NPPF and the existing retail policies within the Development Plan. 

 

5.10    Residential Amenity

 

5.10.1  The proposed building would be located approximately 40metres from the nearest residential properties, which would be further than the existing buildings within the application site. However, clearly the use of the car park would be significantly more intense than the existing use, and would be for a longer period of time during each day.

 

5.10.2  It is proposed that the hours of opening of the store would be between 8am and 10pm Monday to Fridays, 8am to 10pm on Saturdays, and either 10am to 4pm or 11am to 5pm on Sundays.

 

5.10.3  I am satisfied that these hours of opening, whilst relatively extensive would not give rise to any significant impact in terms of residential amenity – through noise and disturbance and light impact. It has been requested that the applicants close the car park off outside of the opening hours to ensure that unsociable behaviour does not occur within the site to the detriment of the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers.

 

5.10.4  I consider that the proposal would give rise to an increase of noise and disturbance to the occupants of these properties, however, this would not be to a level that would be considered unacceptable. I am also mindful that the existing buildings have few restrictions on hours of operation and could be used in a more intensive manner.

 

5.10.5  With regards to the loading yard, this would be located away from residential properties, and as such would have little impact, despite the longer operational hours permitted. Due to its orientation away from these residential properties, the physical barriers proposed and the distance (some 100metres) I consider there to be no significant impact upon these properties.   

 

5.10.6  I am therefore satisfied that this proposal would not give rise to an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers.

 

 

 

5.11    Highways

 

5.11.1  The proposed development would see the creation of a new access point, served from the A229, into the application site by means of a new roundabout. Significant concern has been raised with regards to this access point, in particular with regards to increased congestion and the potential for conflict with residents entering and leaving their property. 

 

5.11.2  The application is supported with a Transport Assessment (TA) which has been assessed by Kent Highway Services (herein referred to as KCC Highways). In addition to this, a cumulative impact assessment has been submitted (July 2012) that demonstrates the impact of both supermarkets being constructed.

 

5.11.3  In terms of the access into the site, whilst concern has been raised within a number of letters about the provision of a small roundabout, this has been fully assessed by Kent Highway Services, who concur with the applicant’s statement that the roundabout would not give rise to any highway safety concerns, or significant congestion. Modelling has been undertaken, and the correct safety audits compiled. The reports demonstrate that whilst the roundabout would slow traffic at this point, and there may be some slight delays should a bus be stationary at the nearby bus stop, this would not cause a highway safety concern, and on this basis no objections are raised. The applicants did assess whether it would be more appropriate to provide traffic signals at the access, but due to the lack of space, and the need to provide a filter lane, this was not possible to provide. This access was also assessed should both applications be approved and constructed, and again, was considered to be safe.

 

5.11.4  The supermarket would be serviced from an access within Station Approach – the point of access being approximately 100metres from the junction with the A229. This is considered a safe distance from this junction. Internally, the applicant has provided reassurance to KCC Highways that the geometry of the service yard is sufficient to accommodate the likely turning and parking requirements for the store. A condition is recommended requiring the areas shown for the turning and parking of vehicles to be kept available for this purpose at all times.

 

5.11.5  In terms of parking numbers within the customer car park, during pre-application discussions a balance was sought between the need to provide a sufficient number, but also to ensure that the car park was not of a scale that would see the proposal become an ‘easy alternative’ to shopping within Maidstone, particularly for those who reside in areas such as Linton, Coxheath or Loose – as this would effectively undermine the sustainability argument put forward as part justification for this development. It was therefore agreed that the numbers put forward at this point in time demonstrated the ‘correct balance’ between providing a suitable number, but also, not over-providing.

 

5.11.6  The applicant has agreed to provide a car parking management plan, should planning permission be granted. Due to the proximity of the site to Staplehurst Station, there would be an obvious concern that commuters would otherwise utilise the car park during the day, resulting in an under-provision of car parking spaces for shoppers.

 

5.11.7  The Transport Assessment that accompanies the planning application has been modelled as per the scoping discussions which took place between the applicant’s highway engineer and KCC Highways. A draft travel plan has also been submitted to encourage staff and customer travel to the store by more sustainable means wherever possible. The travel plan would form part of the planning obligation, and would be monitored by KCC Highways.

 

5.11.8  To promote other modes of transport, as an alternative to the private motor car, the applicants are proposing a series of highway improvements and financial contributions which would include:

 

·         The provision of new bus stops and seating, together with the provision of ‘real time’ bus information;

·         A new pedestrian crossing across the A229 to the south of the store;

·         Cycle stands at the store;

·         A travel plan, and a contribution towards its monitoring;

·         The provision of a free bus to and from the application site to the surrounding rural area.   

 

5.11.9  I consider these proposed enhancements to contribute significantly to the development, and would encourage those using the store to travel by other, more sustainable means. The majority of weekly shops are still likely to be undertaken by car (by the nature of the volume of products bought), however, for those without access to a car, or for those who would visit the store more frequently, there would be suitable alternatives, enhanced by this proposal, should they wish to use them.

 

5.11.10 I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would not result in any risk to highway safety, should either the proposal be brought forward by itself, or whether a further supermarket was provided. I therefore see no reason to object on these grounds. 

 

5.12    Landscaping

 

5.12.1  The applicants have submitted a full landscaping scheme with the proposal. 

 

5.12.2  The landscaping proposed within the development would not significantly soften the proposed building, due to its location on the corner of the highway. However, it is proposed that tree planting be provided on either side of the access which would frame the entrance, and also soften the impact upon the neighbouring properties.

 

5.12.3  Within the site tree planting is proposed along the western boundary of the application site, and I would also suggest it appropriate to incorporate a hedge along this boundary to further soften the impact of the proposal, and to enhance the appearance, and opportunities for biodiversity.

 

5.12.4  Whilst the application site is limited in terms of space around the car parking area, the applicant has demonstrated that clusters of tree planting can be provided along the south-western boundary which would soften the proposal in relation to the residents of these neighbouring dwellings.

 

5.12.5  Along the western boundary of the application site trees and hedges are proposed to again retain the soft character that the existing residential properties currently enjoy.

 

5.12.6  The applicants have not indicated the species proposed within the site, however, I consider it important that indigenous species be included within the planting, particularly with regards to the tree planting. I have therefore worded a suggested condition accordingly. I am satisfied that the landscaping proposed would be of a sufficient level to enhance the current situation, and also to respond positively to the new development. I therefore raise no objections on these grounds.

 

5.13    S106 Contributions

 

5.13.1  The applicant has submitted a draft S106 agreement following discussions with the Authority. Any request for contributions needs to be scrutinised, in accordance with Regulation 122 of Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010. These stipulate that an obligation can only be a reason for granting planning permission if it meets the following requirements: - 

 

It is:

 

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

(b) directly related to the development; and

(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

                                                    

5.13.2  The applicant is proposing the following items as part of an overarching package that would be provided to mitigate against the impact to the village centre (and surrounding area). The proposals are:

 

·         The completion of the factory building prior to the occupation of the supermarket.

·         The provision of a community bus that would serve the local area (a copy of the proposed route is attached to the draft S106 agreement). This bus would serve the villages of Staplehurst, Marden, and surrounding area and would be provided for a minimum of 5 years.

·         A contribution of £50,000 for enhancements to the village centre of Staplehurst. These enhancements are proposed to be the provision of new paving, benches, and signage which will be agreed with the existing landowners, Parish Council and the Local Planning Authority should permission be granted.

·         A contribution towards the County Council’s costs in monitoring compliance with the Travel Plan (£5,000).  

 

 5.13.3        In terms of whether these proposals meet the test as set out above, I consider the provision of a community bus to be of significant benefit. Part of the overriding justification for this development is the lack of facilities within the locality, and the provision of a bus of this nature would further improve accessibility to both the store, and the village centre itself. I therefore consider that this proposal is part of a number of measures required to make this proposal acceptable in planning terms, is clearly directly related to the development, and is fair and reasonable in kind. This element of the proposal is therefore in accordance with the CIL regulations as set out above.

 

5.13.4  With regards to the provision of a contribution of £50,000 towards the enhancement of the village centre. It has been agreed that in order to make the existing offer more attractive, and to therefore mitigate this proposal to a certain extent, it is necessary to see such a provision. It is noted that ‘The Parade’ is privately owned land, however, the applicants have agreed to work with both the Parish Council and the owners (if possible) to provide suitable enhancements to the public realm within the vicinity of this shopping area. An appraisal of the site, and the possible opportunities has been provided to the Authority which highlight improvements to pavements, signage and seating that could be undertaken, as well as enhancements to soft landscaping. I consider that the sum proposed is reasonable, and I also consider that the enhancements proposed to relate to the provision of extra retail floorspace within the locality. I therefore consider this element of the proposal to be in accordance with the CIL regulations as set out above.

 

5.13.5  It is noted that the applicants for application MA/12/0232 have now submitted their proposed Heads of Terms which suggests the provision of £100,000 towards village improvements. Whilst this is clearly a larger amount, with more work therefore able to be undertaken, I remain of the opinion that the contribution of £50,000 is adequate to enhance the village centre and to mitigate the impact of the proposal.

 

5.13.6  With regards to the erection of the factory building prior to the occupation of the supermarket – due to the allocation of the land within the Local Plan, the local planning authority is required to be satisfied that this existing facility would be maintained (or enhanced) should permission be granted. Clearly the retention of these jobs is if significance, and as such I consider this requirement of the S106 agreement to be necessary, and related to the development. I consider this requirement meets the tests of the CIL regulations.

 

5.14    Sustainability

 

5.14.1  The applicant has submitted information with regards to the sustainable elements of the construction of the new supermarket. As an overall ‘headline’ the store would achieve a ‘very good’ BREEAM rating, but in order to achieve this, the following features are to be incorporated:

 

·         Rainwater harvesting will be incorporated to flush public and staff toilets;

·         Cold air is to be removed from the chiller aisles and utilised to cool the glazed areas of the store. There would be doors on the cabinets and freezers;

·         A heat transfer system would cool office areas with air from the chiller aisle;

·         Natural ventilation within the building would be utilised where feasibly;

·         The use of natural light would also be utilised where feasible. 

 

5.14.2  I am satisfied that the proposal would represent a good standard of design, and the suitable sustainable construction techniques, and future management would be utilised within the building. I therefore consider that the proposal would comply with the requirement of the NPPF in this respect.

 

5.15       Other Matters

 

5.15.1 Consideration has been given to the proposal in relation to light nuisance. The car park is set behind existing residential properties, and as such, it is important to ensure that there is no significant nuisance caused to these occupiers by the lighting.

 

5.15.2  In terms of ecology the application site is previously developed land, with the majority of the site either containing existing built form or hardstanding. I do not consider that the proposal would provide any habitat for any significant ecology as a result. Nevertheless, the applicants have submitted an appraisal of the existing buildings which again shows limited potential for bats, or breeding birds (due to the activity within the buildings) and as such I see no reason to object to this proposal on this basis.

 

5.16   Public Representations on the Application

 

5.16.1 As indicated within the ‘Representation’ section above, a significant number of representations have been submitted, with the majority indicating support for the proposal. Responses to consultation need to be taken into account in reaching a decision on the application.

 

5.16.2  It is noted that the similar application MA/12/0232 has received more letters of support than this application, with a number of pro-forma responses received, as well as a petition.

 

5.16.3  Nonetheless, there is significant support for this proposal, as can be seen from the volume of responses received – although I am also minded that there are some letters of objection, particularly from neighbouring properties concerned about the impact upon their amenity. 

 

5.17    Side-by-side analysis of main aspects of Tesco Scheme and Sainsbury’s Scheme

 

5.17.1  This analysis is intended to aid members in their understanding of the applications but reference to, at least, the full reports on each scheme is essential as this is not an exhaustive list.  A knowledge by Members of the elements, layout, elevations, proposed landscaping and siting of each scheme is assumed as well as an appreciation of the suggested conditions, highway and public transport improvements and headings of a s.106 agreement. 

 

5.17.2         The retail floor space of each scheme is broadly similar. Both schemes would provide a similar retail offer.  The Council’s retail consultants indicate that there is a quantitative and qualitative need for the type and floorspace of shopping to be provided by each scheme.

 

5.17.3 Both schemes are likely to lead to a more sustainable pattern of food shopping in terms of converting food shopping trips by Staplehurst residents from more distant supermarkets such as within Maidstone.

 

5.17.4 Both schemes are likely to provide a similar number of jobs and to provide an injection of investment into the economy, welcomed by the Government in its 2011 growth agenda.

 

5.17.5 Both schemes would have some impact on the stores in Staplehurst but both schemes are proposing highway-related enhancements and enhancements to the public realm which would to some extent mitigate those impacts.

 

5.17.6 Neither scheme would harm the vitality or viability of Staplehurst town centre or any other centre.  If both schemes proceeded (which is unlikely) then they would be likely to take trade from one another rather than unduly harm the vitality or viability of Staplehurst town centre or another centre.

 

5.17.7 The Sainsbury scheme is wholly within the settlement boundary of Staplehurst as shown in the Local Plan.  The Tesco scheme is substantially but not wholly outside that settlement boundary.  The Tesco scheme involves development of land to the north of the railway line which is wholly outside the settlement boundary.

 

5.17.8 The Tesco scheme is in part on greenfield land and the Sainsbury scheme is wholly on previously developed land.

 

5.17.9  The Tesco scheme is physically closer to the railway station than the Sainsbury scheme.

 

5.17.10 The Sainsbury scheme is physically closer to the town centre of Staplehurst than the Tesco scheme.

 

5.17.11 The Sainsbury scheme is physically closer to the majority of housing within the Staplehurst settlement.

 

5.17.12 The Tesco scheme includes a petrol filling station and the Sainsbury’s scheme does not.  Each scheme has a cafe.

 

5.17.13 Sainsburys scheme includes parking for 171 cars, cycle parking, new bus stops, a taxi pick up point, new pedestrian crossing and a small roundabout. 

 

5.17.14 The Tesco scheme includes cycle parking, parking for 235 customer cars at the foodstore and 660 cars at the new station car park to the north of the railway line.  It also proposes a station car park to the south of the railway line with a new station drop off arrangement with some short and long stay parking adjacent to it, and the drop off arrangement would include a bus and taxi pick up area.  The scheme would provide a puffin crossing and other pedestrian crossing facilities.  The Tesco scheme would include traffic signals controlling flows into and out of Station Approach.  The Tesco scheme would provide improvements that are sought for Staplehurst that are in the draft Integrated Transport Strategy.

 

5.17.15 The Tesco scheme would provide real time bus information, turning areas, enhanced/widened pavement areas and the new bus arrangement would be situated close to the station building entrance. 

 

5.17.16 The Officer Reports in relation to each scheme consider that the Tesco scheme is in conflict with Local Plan policy ENV 28 (development in the countryside)  and that the Sainsbury scheme is in conflict with Local Plan policy ED2 (land in employment use).  The full reports must be referred to.

 

5.17.17 Sainsburys scheme would involve the demolition of two DK Holdings buildings and a GMS building (B8).  The GMS business is coming to an end and the operator is closing down the company irrespective of the Sainsbury scheme.  A purpose built factory for DK Holdings on an adjacent site has planning permission and would be erected prior to the operation of a Sainsbury supermarket.

 

5.17.18 The Sainsbury scheme would involve the loss of about 3360 sqm of class B floor space in a location which the Local Plan identifies as an existing area of economic activity/ an area with planning consent for economic development. 

 

5.17.19 Sainsburys scheme will enable DK Holdings to operate from modern purpose built premises enabling them to consolidate their operations to become more efficient and expand. 

 

5.17.20 The Tesco scheme involves the loss of ecological habitat.  The Sainsbury scheme does not.  The Tesco scheme offers ecological mitigation.

 

5.17.21 As to matters which would be secured by s.106 agreement or by highway agreement, the full reports must be referred to.  Of particular note are:

 

·         Tesco scheme offering £70,000 towards village improvements.

·         Sainsbury’s scheme offering £50,000 towards village improvements.

·         Sainsbury’s scheme would provide a free shuttle bus service for customers for a minimum of five years  serving the local area.

·         Tesco scheme proposing to operate community bus.

·         Sainsbury scheme providing new bus stops and real time information and a new pedestrian crossing.

 

 

 

6.         Balance of Considerations

 

6.1       In accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the determination of the application is to be made in accordance with the Development Plan insofar as it is material to the application unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

 

6.2       In considering the main planning issues relating to the proposed development it has been demonstrated that the design, highways and environmental matters have been satisfactorily resolved, subject to the mitigation measures proposed and secured through the S106 legal agreement and conditions. Therefore the principal issues for consideration by Members relates to the land designation, and whether it is acceptable to depart from the Development Plan, and the impact that the proposal would have on the village and outlying areas (including neighbouring towns/villages). 

           

6.3       On the first of these two issues, the proposed supermarket would be constructed on a site that is allocated for employment development by the adopted Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan. As such, the development would represent a departure from the provisions of Local Plan Policy ED2. It is not by itself considered that the application is of a scale however that would be required to be referred to the Secretary of State, but the amount of floorspace aggregated with that proposed under application (MA/12/0232) does require the referral of both applications under the Town and Country Planning Act (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009. Furthermore, there are existing business uses on this application site that would have to be relocated should this proposal receive the benefit of planning permission (the B8 use is understood to be closing down in any event). However, an application has been submitted alongside this proposal that would see a new premise for this company (and indeed an enhancement upon their existing premises) delivered prior to the delivery of the supermarket, and this application has now been approved. This new industrial unit would be built on allocated, but undeveloped land adjacent to their existing site. The question that needs full consideration is therefore - is there overriding justification to allow for this employment land to be lost at this point in time?

 

6.4       I have explained in the section of the report dealing with the employment allocation that I consider there to be persuasive grounds to see the release of this land for an alternative use, within this sustainable location. There would also be a significant number of jobs created should this proposal be permitted, and the proposal would have other benefits in terms of more choice for the residents, and a more sustainable pattern of shopping taking place. 

 

6.5       The delivery of prosperity and economic development is a key Council objective and I am of the opinion that this proposal would accord with this aim within the short to medium term. However, the impact upon the existing businesses within the village and surrounding area needs to be considered with some caution. Businesses begin and cease trading for many reasons and competition should not be restricted through the planning system unless there are very good policy based reasons to do so. The provision of a supermarket of this scale will significantly alter Staplehurst’s retail offer, drawing in shoppers from a wider area. The applicants have demonstrated that the development would not have a significant impact upon the existing retail offer, either within the existing settlement, or within the wider catchment area. 

 

6.6       Any impacts arising from the proposed development would be further mitigated via the completion of a suitable legal agreement and the use of appropriate planning conditions.

 

6.7       It is necessary therefore to accord weight to the benefits and dis-benefits of the scheme and to assess whether or not the balance is in favour of the grant of planning permission or the refusal of planning permission.  In particular, I consider the loss of the B1/B2 employment land to be acceptable. My reasons are referred to in the sections dealing with the allocation and policy ED2 above.  I am also mindful of the benefits that are likely to flow from DK Holdings having a purpose-built factory, which are referred to by Maidstone’s Economic Development team.  I also take the view that the new building would enhance the appearance of the streetscene at this gateway into and out of the village. I also consider that the provision of a new foodstore at this location is acknowledged to be likely to result in more sustainable shopping patterns, and will also provide greater choice for the existing residents.  I acknowledge that there is an application on the adjacent land to the north (MA/12/0232) which would be likely to also bring greater retail choice for existing residents and would result in more sustainable food shopping patterns in this part of Kent.  In my view, neither scheme is likely to bring overall retail harm and so I view each scheme as resulting in an absence of harm in relation to this factor.  Overall therefore, the dis-benefits of the current scheme are clearly outweighed by the benefits it would bring and I consider that planning permission should be granted. Accordingly, having due regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, and to all other material considerations, insofar as they are applicable to the proposals, the application is recommended for approval, subject to the receipt of a suitable S106 legal agreement and the imposition of suitable safeguarding conditions.

 

 

 

7.           RECOMMENDATION

 

7.1     The Head of Planning be given delegated powers to approved subject to the receipt of a suitable S016 legal agreement that provides the following:

 

1)   The factory building for DK Holdings as permitted under MA/11/1943 shall be constructed prior to the occupation of the supermarket;

2)  A contribution of £50,000 for the enhancement of the village centre of Staplehurst;

3)  The provision of a community bus that would serve the locality (including nearby villages);

4)  A contribution towards the County Council’s costs in monitoring compliance with the Travel Plan (£5,000). 

 

And subject to the following conditions:

 

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

Reason: In accordance with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.           The development shall not commence until, written details and samples of the materials (which shall include, timber cladding and metal cladding) to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be constructed using the approved materials;

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

3.           The net floorspace of the store hereby permitted shall not exceed 1,784sq metres net of which no more than 1,400 sq metres net shall be used for the sale of convenience goods and no more than 500 sq metres shall be used for the sale of comparison goods.

Reason: To define the permission and to ensure that any impact upon the village centre and surrounding villages is controlled in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

4.           The use hereby permitted shall only open to customers within the following times:

8am to 10pm Monday to Saturday and either 10am to 4pm or 11am to 5pm on Sunday.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

5.           No deliveries or loading/unloading shall take place at the superstore between the hours of 00.00 and 05.00 hours.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

6.           No plant or equipment shall be erected on the roofs of any of the buildings hereby permitted.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and good design in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

7.           Details of all external lighting of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of the development. This information shall include a layout plan with beam orientation and a scheme of equipment in the design (luminaire, type, mounting height, aiming angle and luminaire profiles). This scheme shall include a schedule of proposed hours of use for the different components of the submitted light scheme. The lighting shall be installed, maintained and operated in accordance with the approved details unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

Reason: To protect the appearance of the area, the environment and local residents from light pollution, in accordance with Policy ENV49 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000.

8.           All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation;

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory setting and external appearance to the development pursuant to policy ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan 2000.

9.           The approved details of the parking/turning areas shall be completed before the commencement of the use of the land or buildings hereby permitted and shall thereafter be kept available for such use. No development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2008 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order, with or without modification) or not, shall be carried out on the areas indicated or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to them;

Reason: Development without adequate parking/turning provision is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and in the interests of road safety pursuant to policy T13 of the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan 2000.

10.        Prior to the first occupation of any part of the development hereby permitted, a Business Travel Plan which shall include measures for its implementation, monitoring, review and subsequent enforcement, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in consultation with the highway authority and shall thereafter implemented in accordance with the details of the plan upon first occupation of any part of the development.   

Reason: In the interests of sustainability pursuant to policy T5 of the South East Plan 2009.

11.        The development shall not commence until a detailed car park management plan has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The subsequently approved plan shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any part of the development and shall be maintained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority;

Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety and to prevent parking inconsiderate to other road users pursuant to policy T13 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000.

12.        Prior to the first occupation of any part of the development hereby permitted, details of a maintenance programme for maintaining the external appearance of the buildings shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The programme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the subsequently approved details.

Reason; To maintain and preserve the character and appearance of the buildings in the interests of the visual amenities and character of the area pursuant to policies CC1 and CC6 of the South East Plan 2009.

13.        The development shall not commence until:
 
1. Approved remediation works for contamination previously identified on the site have been carried out in full on site under a Quality Assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with details of the previously approved methodology for undertaking the works. If during any works, contamination is identified which has not previously been identified, additional Contamination Proposals shall be submitted to and approved by, the local planning authority.

2. Upon completion of the works, this condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The closure report shall include full details of the works and certification that the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved methodology. The closure report shall include details of any post remediation sampling and analysis together with documentation certifying quantities and source/destination of any material brought onto or taken from the site. Any material brought onto the site shall be certified clean;

Reason: To prevent harm to human health and pollution of the environment pursuant to PPS23.

14.        The development shall not commence until details of foul and surface water drainage have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the subsequently approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage to the site pursuant to policies NRM2 and NRM4 of the South East Plan 2009.

15.        The retail unit shall achieve at least a Very Good BREEAM Retail rating. The unit shall not be occupied until a final certificate has been issued for it certifying that at least a Very Good BREEAM Retail rating has been achieved.

Reason: to ensure a sustainable and energy efficient form of development in accordance with Kent Design and the National Planning Policy Framework and policy CC4 of the South East Plan 2009.

16.        Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted plans, the development shall not commence until a detailed landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall include:-

(i) The planting of indigenous species within the car park wherever possible;
(ii) The provision of knee railings adjacent to the parking bays adjacent to the landscaped beds;
(iii) The provision of a native hedge and tree planting along the western boundary of the application site.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to ensure a satisfactory setting and external appearance to the development pursuant to policy ENV6 of the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan 2000.

17.        No occupation of the development hereby permitted shall take place until improved bus stops (including 'real time' bus information) have been provided on both the north bound and south bound sections of the A229. Precise details of these bus stops shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing prior to works being undertaken.

Reason: In the interests of sustainable modes of transport in accordance with the NPPF.

18.        No development shall take place until details of the cycle storage facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of sustainable travel in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

19.        No development shall take place until the applicant has secured and had implemented a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority;

Reason: To enable the recording of any items of historical or archaeological interest in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

20.        The proposed development shall include the provision of heavy duty curtains to the loading bays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that noise from the store is minimised, in the interests of residential amenity in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

21.        Details of how the car park will be closed to the general public outside of store opening hours shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers is maintained in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

22.        The development shall not commence until, details of all fencing, walling and other boundary treatments (which shall include a ragstone wall) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the first occupation of the building or land and maintained thereafter;

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to safeguard the enjoyment of their properties by existing and prospective occupiers in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

23.        The development shall not commence until, details of the proposed slab levels of the building and the existing site levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be completed strictly in accordance with the approved levels;

Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory form of development having regard to the topography of the site in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

24.        No development shall take place until details of how the management of the supermarket trolleys will be undertaken to ensure that they are not removed from the application site have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity within the village, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

25.        There shall be no external amplified sound within the car park or service yard of the development hereby permitted;
 
Reason: in the interests of protecting the amenities of nearby residential property, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Informatives set out below

You are advised to ensure that the appointed contractor(s) is/are registered with the 'Considerate Constructors Scheme' and that the site is thereafter managed in accordance with the Scheme. Further information can be found at  www.considerateconstructorsscheme.org.uk

A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Atkins Ltd. Anglo Street James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH.

Where it is proposed to store more than 200 litres (45 gallon drum = 205litres) of any type of oil on site it must be stored in accordance with the Control of Pollution (oil storage) (England) Regulations 2001. Drums and barrels can be kept in drip trays if the drip tray is capable of retaining 25% of the total capacity of all oil stored.

Care should be taken during and after construction to ensure that all fuels, oils and any other potentially contaminating materials should be stored (for example in bunded areas secured from public access) so as to prevent accidental/ unauthorised discharge to ground. The areas for storage should not drain to any surface water system.

Attention is drawn to Sections 60 and 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and to the Associated British Standard Code of practice BS5228:1997 for noise control on construction sites. Statutory requirements are laid down for control of noise during works of construction and demolition and you are advised to contact the Environmental Health Manager regarding noise control requirements.

No construction vehicles may arrive, depart, be loaded or unloaded within the general site except between the hours of 0800 and 1900 Mondays to Fridays and 0800 and 1300 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Plant and machinery used for demolition and construction shall only be operated within the application site between 0800 hours and 1900 hours on Mondays to Fridays and between 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sunday and Bank Holidays.

As an initial operation on site, adequate precautions shall be taken during the progress of the works to guard against the deposit of mud and similar substances on the public highway in accordance with proposals to be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority. Such proposals shall include washing facilities by which vehicles will have their wheels, chassis and bodywork effectively cleaned and washed free of mud and similar substances.

You are advised that if during the course of development protected species are found on site, all works should cease until appropriate mitigation works have been agreed and any necessary licenses obtained in accordance with the requirements of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC Act) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations 2010).

If site clearance works take place during the bird breeding season (March to August), such work should be undertaken in consultation with and under the supervision of a trained ecologist as it is an offence to disturb active nests and nesting birds.

Reason for Approval

 

The proposed development does not conform with policy ED2 of the Development Plan however departure from that policy would be likely to result in only minor harm and it has been demonstrated that both Staplehurst and the wider area would see significant benefits, both in terms of sustainability through a reduction on the private motor car to make significant journeys for convenience shopping, and in terms of the provision of additional jobs within the village, I consider that there are overriding benefits to this proposal that allows for a departure from the Development Plan and outweighs any other perceived harm.

 

Appendix A

 

Suggested ground for refusal (should Members be minded to refuse the application).

 

a.    The proposed development would see the loss of existing, occupied employment land, without any demonstration that the land is not required for such a purpose, thereby proving contrary to Policy ED2 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan (2000) and to the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).