APPLICATION:       MA/12/2314            Date: 24 December 2012  Received: 2 January 2013

 

APPLICANT:	Gallagher Props. Ltd & Next Group Plc.
LOCATION:	PLOT 4, ECLIPSE PARK, SITTINGBOURNE ROAD, MAIDSTONE, KENT, ME14 3EN
PARISH:	Boxley, Maidstone
PROPOSAL:	Erection of Class A1 retail development (with ancillary cafe) and associated servicing, car parking, landscaping and access arrangements as shown on drawing nos. NEXT001revL (Floor plan), 2009/12/B/4 (location of viewpoints), 9504-500revP1 (Highways scheme plan), 9504-513revP2 (Highway sign marking 1of 2). 9504-514revP6 (Highway sign marking 2 of 2), Retail Statement, Planning Statement, Transport Statement, Travel Plan revB,  Phase One Habitat and Ecology Appraisal, Statement of Community Involvement, Land Contamination Preliminary Risk Assessment, Office Accommodation Supply and demand in Maidstone, CONFIDENTIAL Business Case Report received 02/01/2013 as amended by drawing nos. 5320/LP01revB (Site location plan), 5320/P21revB (Site layout plan), 5320/P101revG (Front and rear elevations), 5320/P102revG (East and West elevations), 5320/P108 (Artist views), 5320/P109revA (Artist views), 5320/P112revD (Cross section through site), Design and Access Statement, External Lighting statement, Transport Update Note, Foul and Surface Water Drainage Statement and drawing no. A1598-610revP6 (Drainage) received 15/02/2013 and further amended by drawing nos. 13-01-01revA (Illustrative Landscape Masterplan) received 07/05/2013 and 13-01-03 (Examples of planting) received 10/05/2013.
AGENDA DATE:   CASE OFFICER:	6th June 2013   Steve Clarke

 

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

 

●  It is a departure from the Development Plan.  The site is allocated for Class B2 (general industrial) uses in the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan (2000).  The application proposal is for Class A1 retail.

●  It is a major/controversial application

●  Councillor Naghi has requested it be reported for the reason set out in the report

 

1.       POLICIES

 

·      Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV6, ENV49, ED1, T13, T17, R2, R3
Government Policy: NPPF 2012, Ministerial Planning for Growth Letter; Practice guidance on need, impact and the sequential approach (December 2009). 

 

2.      HISTORY

 

2.1     Previous planning history relevant to the current application site is as follows:-

 

·      MA/13/0389: Application for a new permission to replace an extant planning permission MA/10/0389 in order to extend the time limit for implementation of the outline planning permission for B1 and B2 development to include the renewal of the extant reserved matters approvals for plots 6, 7 & 8 (MA/01/0249/05, MA/01/0249/06 and MA/01/0249/07 respectively): APPROVED 22/04/2013

 

·      MA/12/0021:  Application to remove condition 2 of planning permission MA/11/0242 (An application for new planning permission to replace extant planning permission in order to extend the time limit for implementing planning permission MA/08/1732 (outline planning permission for the erection of a B1a Office building with access to be considered at this stage and all other matters reserved for future consideration): UNDETERMINED (Subject to Holding Direction preventing determination from the Highways Agency)

 

·      MA/11/0242: An application for new planning permission to replace extant planning permission in order to extend the time limit for implementing planning permission MA/08/1732 (outline planning permission for the erection of a B1a Office building with access to be considered at this stage and all other matters reserved for future consideration): APPROVED 05/04/2011

 

·      MA/10/0389: An application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission in order to extend the time limit for implementation of outline permission MA/05/1871 for B1 and B2 development: APPROVED 04/06/2010

·      MA/08/1732: Outline planning permission for the erection of a B1a Office building with access to be considered at this stage and all other matters reserved for future consideration: APPROVED 22/01/2009Only relevant history to be included - most recent first

 

·      MA/07/1851: Application to discharge the Section 106 Agreement dated 15th March 2002 attached to the outline planning permission reference MA/01/0249 (for the erection of buildings for use for the purposes of either class B1 or B2). This would allow all new development on the premises to fall within use classes B1(a), B1(b), B2(c) and B2 of the use classes order without a stipulation on the quantitative split between these uses (currently no more than 40% B1(a) and at least 60% falling within classes B1(b) and B2(c) of the use classes order): APPROVED 07/08/2008

 

·      MA/07/1776: Formation of a new one-way "in" access from Bearsted Road and reconfiguration of access arrangement to Hilton Hotel with associated landscaping: APPROVED 12/11/2007

 

·      MA/07/0255: Erection of building for the use as regional offices, servicing (including MOT's) sale and display of motor vehicles, parts and other ancillary uses and laying out of parking, creation of new one way 'in' access off Bearsted Road and reconfiguration of hotel parking and access arrangement: WITHDRAWN 02/11/2007

 

·      MA/07/0216: Erection of building for use as regional offices servicing (including MOT's) sale and display of motor vehicles, parts and other ancillary uses and laying out of parking: WITHDRAWN 02/11/2007

 

·      MA/05/1871: Variation of condition 1 of planning permission MA/01/0249 (outline application for erection of buildings for employment purposes - class B1 and class B2 with access and car parking to extend the time within which the development may commence and for imposition of a revised condition 1 to allow a further period in which to submit details pursuant to the outline planning permission: APPROVED 15/11/2005

 

·      MA/05/0869: Erection of a car show room and workshop, and associated parking and landscaping: WITHDRAWN 24/08/2005

 

·      MA/04/0258: Variation of condition 11 of planning permission MA/01/0249 (outline application for the erection of buildings for employment purposes, class B1 and class B2, with access and car parking) to allow development to commence before a Section 278 Highways Agreement is completed: APPROVED 05/04/2004

 

·      MA/01/0249: An outline application for erection of buildings for employment purposes (class B1 and class B2) with access and car parking, with all matters reserved for future consideration: APPROVED 15/03/2002

 

3.      CONSULTATIONS

 

3.1    Boxley Parish Council: made the following comments in respect of the originally submitted proposals:

 

3.1.1 ‘Having carefully considered; the application; traffic issues; the employment that will be bought to the site which has been undeveloped for 10 years and the impact of such a prestigious development for a gateway route into the county town the parish council’s response is 

Do not wish to object however there are concerns about;

 

·     The impact of traffic.

·     Impact on the town centre.

·     Light pollution impact on the AONB;

·     Impact on the surrounding area.

 

If the planning officer was minded to grant permission then the following conditions/investigation should be considered;

 

·   A robust examination of the green travel plan with a condition included in any permission granted to ensure that this plan is adhered to.

·   It is requested that there is a change to the traffic layout being planned for the new junction as it is considered that the introduction of traffic lights will seriously impact on the current traffic flow adding to the considerable congestion experienced in the area. A one way flow system through Eclipse Park, possibly in from Bearsted Road out at Sittingbourne Road, would negate the need to have ‘cross over traffic lights’ at the proposed new junction utilise existing road infrastructure and reducing expenditure.

·   Require a lighting design that compliments the area and negates light pollution.

·   It is understood that there has been a change in the location of the store and that this will allow more perimeter landscaping and this is welcomed. It is requested that vertical green walls are introduced to soften the impact of the building.

·   A condition should be introduce to ensure that the applicant cooperates with other local developers to look towards establishing and maintaining bus services to link said developments with the town centre and park and ride.

·   A robust investigation into the Retail Impact Assessment to ensure that there is no substantial impact on the town centre retail.

·   The issue of traffic and the possible development of plot 4 for retail should be referred to the Integrated Transport Strategy Consultation review.’

 

3.1.2 Following receipt of amended plans moving the location of the building within the site the following additional comments were made by Boxley Parish Council:-

 

‘The amended details have been noted and the parish council makes the following comments.

 

No objection to the new position of the building.

 

The parish council has been made aware that there is a major issue concerning parking in the local residential area (East Ward) opposite the proposed development. This is due to the inadequate provision of car parking for the existing businesses on the site; it is also believed that many staff and visitors to Eclipse Park use spaces in the park and ride. It is noted that only four car parking spaces have been designated for staff at the proposed NEXT development and the parish council would like assurances that this problem has been thoroughly investigated so to ensure that NEXT employees do not add to the problems of vehicles parked in the neighbouring residential areas; on verges in the old part of Sittingbourne Road and in the park and ride. It is acknowledged that there is a green travel produced for this site and it is requested that MBC ensures that it is adequate for the purpose and if so that it is rigorously enforced.’

 

3.2    Highways Agency: Offers no objection to the application having considered the transport assessment and the addendum to the transport assessment submitted by the applicants.

 

3.2.1 The Agency has considered, mitigation schemes, outputs in Passenger Car Units (PCUs), Trip generation, M20 Junction 7 modelling, A249 Bearsted Road/M20 link road roundabout modelling to ascertain the potential traffic impact on the adjacent section of the Strategic Road Network (the M20 Motorway) for which they are responsible.    

 

3.2.2             The Agency’s comments on traffic impact are as follows

 

1.   As requested by the HA, the Addendum TA presents an analysis where the      baseline  models  for  M20  Junction  7  have  been  re-run  to  include  the  mitigation layout  previously  considered  in  the  full  TA.  We have noted previously that the         critical period in relation to the operation of M20 Junction 7 is the weekday PM         peak hour (17:00 to 18:00 hours).

 

2.   On the key M20 (West) arm, during the critical 2022 weekday PM peak hour the existing permitted development and the proposed retail development are seen to result in an increase in queue on the coast bound off slip, offside lane, from 56.0 PCUs to 103.8 PCUs.  It is acknowledged that this in part owing to committed development on the wider Eclipse Park site.  The applicant sets out that the permitted offices are seen to extend the queue on this arm to 105.9 PCUs, whereas the proposed retail development would result in a lesser increase at 103.8 PCUs. 

 

3.   We are content to accept the applicant’s argument that the proposed retail development is forecast to result in lesser impacts on the operation of the junction compared to the permitted office development on Plot 4.

 

4.   For A249 Bearsted Road / M20 link Road roundabout, the Addendum TA also re-runs the baseline assessment assuming the infrastructure modifications committed through the Eclipse Park Hotel and Plot 4 permissions are in place.  It is clear from the results that the benefit from the  Plot  4  mitigation  proposals  are significant  as  in  both  the current and future years the junction is forecast to be operating largely within capacity.

 

5.  We note also that the full TA  shows that the committed  development  pushes the  junction (with  improvements)  over  capacity  in  all  periods,  although  the  retail  development impacts are not material when compared to the  permitted  Plot  4  scenario. We can agree that the impacts of the proposals are satisfactorily mitigated through the introduction of the junction modification scheme already permitted.’

 

3.2.3 The Agency conclude as follows

         ‘We are content that the Transport Assessment has been prepared in accordance with best practice, and presents a robust forecast of trips generated on the SRN.

 

         The applicant has set out that the total trip attraction from the retail development as a whole remains unlikely to exceed that generated by the permitted office development.  Our checks on the trip generation used for the proposal suggest that this is an acceptable analysis. We have undertaken a review of the modelling work used to support the applicant’s conclusions and have found the work to be generally satisfactory, with particular respect to the M20 J7.

 

                   With the Plot 4 mitigation proposals in place, we are satisfied that the revised proposals will not have a material effect on the operation of the SRN.’ 

 

3.2.4 No further comments were made on the revised details. 

 

3.3    Kent Highway Services: Raise no objections

 

3.3.1 Detailed comments are as follows:

 

‘The site has extant permission for 6,400m of B1 office development but currently remains vacant. Access is gained via a left-turn in only route from the A249 Bearsted Road and egress via an internal route through Eclipse Park which links to the Chiltern Hundreds Roundabout.

 

Footways, with associated crossings and street lighting, are provided between the site and the local residential areas of Vinters Park, Grove Green, Bearsted and Penenden Heath. A Regional Cycle Route links the site to Maidstone Town Centre via Hampton Road.

 

Bus services can be accessed from Hampton Road, Bearsted Road or the nearby Park and Ride site. The northbound bus stop on Hampton Road is currently unsheltered and it is considered appropriate for the applicant to provide a shelter at this location to promote the use of public transport by Next employees and customers. It is also considered appropriate for the applicant to provide a contribution to the upgrading of bus stop infrastructure and information at the Park and Ride site to promote linked trips into Maidstone Town Centre by customers. It is recommended that both of these measures are secured by condition.

 

The installation of an all-movements signal junction at the existing left-turn in only access on Bearsted Road was approved with the previous Plot 4 office permission. This scheme has gained Stage 2 detailed technical approval and is therefore capable of being delivered in the near future, subject to the relevant highway works notifications. The Plot 4 proposal also includes improvements to the Chiltern Hundreds and Bearsted Road Roundabouts, as well as a scheme of mitigation on the M20 Junction 7 coast-bound off slip, which is currently undergoing Stage 1 approval with the Highways Agency.

 

Three-year Personal Injury Accident data has been sourced for the area surrounding the application site and it is concluded that there is no existing road safety problem which could be exacerbated by the development proposals, which KCC Highways accepts.

 

The Transport Assessment has been based on a Gross Floor Area for the store of 5,885m; however this has since been reduced to 5,748m, which has provided for a robust assessment of the proposals.

 

A total of 167 customer parking spaces are proposed, together with 4 employee only spaces within the service yard. A parking accumulation exercise has been undertaken to demonstrate that the proposed supply exceeds the envisaged peak demands. Nevertheless, it is recommended that the number of employee only spaces is increased if possible to further reduce the potential for overspill onto the public highway. A total of 14 cycle parking spaces, 9 motorcycle parking spaces and 10 mobility impaired parking spaces are proposed; all of which are in accordance with KCC standards.

 

A vehicle swept path analysis has been provided to demonstrate that both articulated and rigid service vehicles could enter, turn and leave the service yard in a forward gear.

 

The TRICS database has been used to forecast the trip attraction of the proposed development, using the parameters agreed with KCC Highways at pre-application stage.

 

The total development weekday trip attraction is presented as follows:-

 

Period	Arrivals	Departures	Total
AM Peak 08:00-09:00	22	10	33
PM Peak 17:00-18:00	51	55	106
Daily 07:00-19:00	749	777	1525

 

The total development weekend trip attraction is presented as follows:-

 

Period	Arrivals	Departures	Total
INTER 12:00-13:00	145	136	280
INTER 13:00-14:00	153	143	296
INTER 14:00-15:00	170	154	324
INTER 15:00-16:00	164	168	331
Daily   07:00-19:00	1179	1170	2348

 

Mode share data derived from TRICS indicates that 95% of trips to the site would be by car, which is consistent with the sale of bulk goods and the good level of accessibility to the strategic highway network. It is acknowledged in the Transport Assessment that the development would draw mainly ‘new’ and ‘pass-by’ trips, along with a limited number of ‘transferred’ trips, given that there are no similar retailers in the near vicinity of the site. TRICS Research Report 95/2 – Pass-by and Diverted Traffic has been used to calculate the proportion of primary and non-primary trips that may be attracted to the site on weekdays and weekends respectively.

 

The total development weekday trip attraction by trip type is presented as follows:-

 

Period	Arrivals	Departures	Total
Primary
AM Peak 08:00-09:00	22	10	33
PM Peak 17:00-18:00	32	34	66
Daily 07:00-19:00	546	567	1114
Non-primary
AM Peak 08:00-09:00	0	0	0
PM Peak 17:00-18:00	19	21	40
Daily 07:00-19:00	202	210	412

 

The total development weekend trip attraction by trip type is presented as follows:-

 

Period	Arrivals	Departures	Total
Primary
INTER 12:00-13:00	133	125	258
INTER 13:00-14:00	141	131	272
INTER 14:00-15:00	156	141	298
INTER 15:00-16:00	151	154	305
Daily   07:00-19:00	1084	1076	2160
Non-primary
INTER 12:00-13:00	12	11	22
INTER 13:00-14:00	12	11	24
INTER 14:00-15:00	14	12	26
INTER 15:00-16:00	13	13	27
Daily   07:00-19:00	94	94	188

 

On the basis of the primary trips presented above, which would be new to the local highway network, the residual trip generation has been calculated by deducting the consented office trips from the primary retail trips, as follows:-

 

Period	Arrivals	Departures	Total
Weekday
AM Peak 08:00-09:00	-91	0	-91
PM Peak 17:00-18:00	18	-52	-35
Daily 07:00-19:00	174	222	396
Saturday
INTER 12:00-13:00	133	125	258
INTER 13:00-14:00	141	131	272
INTER 14:00-15:00	156	141	298
INTER 15:00-16:00	151	141	298
Daily 0700:1900	1084	1076	2160

 

The development would generate fewer trips in the weekday morning and evening peak hours compared to the consented office use. There would be no residual offset at weekends, although these trips would occur at times when the local highway network would be less heavily trafficked relative to weekdays. The retail trip distribution and assignment has been calculated on the basis of the Retail Assessment for the application. This indicates that 64% of trips will route via M20 Junction 7, with the remainder routeing via local roads.

 

Junction capacity assessments have been carried out on the basis of fully classified turning count survey data. This data has been extrapolated to the horizon year of 2022 using TEMPROv.6.2 and consideration has been given to the committed developments at Eclipse Park, the KIMS Hospital at Newnham Park and the Maidstone Studios, in line with the previous Plot 4 and Hotel planning applications. The junction capacity assessments provide a direct comparison between the permitted but unimplemented Plot 4 office development and the proposed retail development.

 

The Transport Assessment demonstrates that all junctions other than the Chiltern Hundreds Roundabout would experience a reduction in weekday peak traffic relative to the permitted office development. There would be an increase in Saturday peak hour traffic as the offices would not be operational at this time. However, the local junctions are predicted to operate with no significant increase in average delay in all scenarios with the modifications already committed for Plot 4 in place and the introduction of a left filter arrow on the side road arm of the new Bearsted Road / Eclipse Park signal junction. This further improvement would need to be secured by condition.

 

KCC Highways has recently raised concerns with Gallagher Properties Ltd regarding the queue on the Bearsted Road east arm of the new Bearsted Road / Eclipse Park signal junction and its potential interaction with the Bearsted Road Roundabout.

 

However, the LinSig modelling output presented within the Transport Assessment demonstrates that the amount of available queuing space is approximately 12.0 Passenger Car Units (PCUs) and that the mean maximum queue in 2022 is not expected to exceed 7.9 PCUs (during the weekday morning peak hour).

 

A Draft Travel Plan has been submitted with the application; the success of which will be monitored by way of an annual or bi-annual travel survey using KCC’s iTrace survey tool. A monitoring fee of £5,000 will be required by KCC for this purpose and should be secured by condition.

 

I can therefore confirm that provided the following requirements are secured by condition or planning obligation, then I would raise no objection on behalf of the local highway authority.’

 

3.3.2 The suggested conditions relate to the provision of parking for construction vehicles and site operatives/unloading and delivery space, measures to prevent discharge of surface water onto the highway, provision prior to the opening of the store and on-going maintenance of parking spaces to serve the development and the provision of the service yard/delivery area prior to the store opening and its ongoing maintenance, cycle parking provision, provision of a north-bound bus shelter on Hampton Road and improvements to bus stop infrastructure and information at the Sittingbourne Road Park & Ride Site, provision of the agreed package of highway mitigation works at the Bearsted Road Roundabout, Chiltern Hundreds Roundabout, the eastern Eclipse Park site access and the M20 Junction 7, as per the previously permitted Plot 4 development and submission of a Business Travel Plan, which shall include measures for its implementation, monitoring, review and subsequent enforcement, for approval by the local planning authority in consultation with the highway authority, along with a monitoring fee of £5,000.      

 

3.4      KCC Biodiversity: Do not object and make the following detailed comments

 

3.4.1 ‘The Extended Phase 1 Survey and BREEAM Ecological Assessment report has been submitted in support of this application. The majority of the site has been classified in the report as arable grassland which has been recently scarified. However, the photographs within the report show short rough grassland cover across the site; the photographs may have been taken prior to the site visit as there is no evidence of bare earth, as stated in the report.

 

Given the status of the site at the time of survey, the conclusion that the ‘arable grassland’ area of the site is of limited ecological value is reasonable. The hedgerows and scrub woodland contain a range of flora and are of site value. They also have potential to support additional species, including those that are legally protected.

No plan of the ecological assessment findings has been included in the report so the extent of the identified habitats is unclear, as is the potential level of impact. We note the intention to retain existing trees and shrubs on the boundary of the site but advise that clarification is sought as to whether there will be any loss of habitat, particularly if these features encroach onto the proposed area of development.

 

There is a pond present to the north-west of the site which is not identified in the ecological assessment. We advise that this pond is assessed for its value, including the potential for it to support great crested newts.

 

While we agree with the conclusion that the potential for reptile use of the site is limited to the boundary features, we do not agree that there is insufficient connectivity from the site to other available habitat; aerial photographs of the site show that there is connectivity around the edges of the Eclipse Park complex and the Park and Ride site to the Heath Wood area where reptiles are known to occur.

 

The development appears to extend to almost the edges of the site, potentially resulting in some loss of edge habitat that supports reptiles. We advise that the potential for impacts to reptiles as a result of the proposals is reconsidered. The aim should be to retain areas of suitable habitat within the design of the proposed development to ensure that impacts to the local population of reptiles, if present, are minimised.

 

One of the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework is that “opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged”. Some recommendations are provided, with a particular focus on retaining and enhancing the existing boundary features and incorporating bird and bat boxes into the design of the proposed building. Of additional benefit would be the provision of a rough grassland buffer strip around the site.

 

While the ecological report does not recommend the provision of a pond, one is included in the landscaping plan in the north-east corner of the site. If the purpose of this water-body is to provide ecological enhancement, we advise that the currently proposed large shrub/tree planting will limit the potential ecological value. We also query whether any planting is proposed for the pond itself. The pond is not shown on the proposed drainage strategy for the site, but it is immediately adjacent to a soakaway trench. We advise that confirmation is sought as to whether the pond is designed to provide some additional SuDS function, and whether it is appropriately located to avoid pollution if its core purpose is biodiversity enhancement.

 

There is a wide variety of species included in the proposed planting, many of which are native species, the inclusion of which we support.’

 

3.5    Environment Agency: No objections. The following comments were made:-

 

3.5.1 ‘The report has been written in line with relevant Environment Agency guidance. Based on the information which is provided, we agree with the conclusions that there are no apparent sources of contamination. Therefore we consider that planning permission could be granted for the proposed development as submitted if the following planning condition is included as set out below. Without this condition, the proposed development on this site poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and we would object to the application.

Condition: If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

 

Reason: The site is underlain by the Folkestone formation which is designated a principal aquifer and to be compliant with the NPPF.

 

Informatives

 

Drainage

The application indicates that foul sewage will be discharged to the mains supply. If this changes then we should be consulted.

The application also indicates that surface water will be disposed of by trench soakaways. The proposed soakaways at the above location are acceptable from a groundwater protection point of view but they will need to be constructed as shallow as possible, and at this site there should be 6m between the base of the soakaway and the groundwater level.

If you wish to reduce the distance between the base of the soakaway and the groundwater level, then a risk assessment should be submitted. The risk assessment should include site specific groundwater level information and indicate how groundwater quality will not be impacted. The site is sensitive because it’s located within a source protection zone and groundwater in the area is likely to feed the nearby rivers.

There should be no discharge into land impacted by contamination or land previously identified as being contaminated. There should be no discharge to made ground. There must be no direct discharge to groundwater.

Only clean uncontaminated water should drain to the surface water system. Roof drainage shall drain directly to the surface water system (entering after the pollution prevention measures). Appropriate pollution control methods (such as trapped gullies and interceptors) should be used for drainage from access roads and car parking areas to prevent hydrocarbons from entering the surface water system.  A series of shallow soakaways are preferable to deep bored soakaways, as deep bored soakaways can act as conduits for rapid transport of contaminants to groundwater.

Pollution prevention

All precautions must be taken to avoid discharges and spills to the ground both during and after construction. For advice on pollution prevention, the applicant should refer to our guidance “PPG1 – General guide to prevention of pollution”, which is available on our website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk.

 

Waste

 

The CLAIRE Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice (version 2) provides operators with a framework for determining whether or not excavated material arising from site during remediation and/or land development works are waste or have ceased to be waste.

 

Please also note that contaminated soil that is excavated, recovered or disposed of, is controlled waste. Therefore its handling, transport, treatment and disposal is subject to waste management legislation which includes:

        i.        Duty of Care Regulations 1991

        ii.       The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011

        iii.       Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005

        iv.      Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (England and Wales) 2000

        v.       Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010’

 

3.6    Southern Water: Have advised that there is a foul sewer in the vicinity of the site and have enclosed a plan showing its location and specified their requirements regarding the siting of development and landscaping not within 3m of the centre line of the sewer or any soakaway to be sited with 5m of the centre line of the sewer and advise the plans show a proposed soakaway too close.

 

3.6.1 They have requested a condition requiring details of measures to protect the public sewer to be submitted and agreed. They wish the applicants to be advised by means of an informative of the need to make a formal application for connection to the public sewer. Lastly as they note there is no public surface water sewer in the vicinity, alternative means of the disposal of surface water needs to be made. They comment on the proposed use of SUDS and advise that as these will not be adopted plans for their long-term maintenance must be secured. 

 

3.7    UK Power Networks: No objections

 

3.8    MBC Environmental Health: No objections and comment as follows:

 

3.8.1 ‘The Contaminated Land report follows current best practice and we recommend a watching brief condition.

The light report appears to follow current best practice and there are no affected neighbouring residences. We have no comments to make on AONB aspect and this maybe of interest to MBC’s Heritage, Landscape & Design team.

The travel plan contains some good information but does not address delivery aspects or inclusion of EV charging for customers (i.e. where transport is required this should be encouraged towards low emission vehicles). This links to our comments regarding the air quality assessment.

Air Quality - A retail operation can influence local travel routes.  The supporting transport data shows 36% of traffic will be derived locally and 64% from M20. The M20 is an area of air quality exceedance. However, it is unlikely that this development will cause significant impacts to known hotspots however it could play in important role in reducing cumulative emissions in the local area. We recommend the inclusion of an emission reduction condition or aspect to the travel plan (suggested condition provided). The current proposed travel plan goes someway to addressing this but needs improving to be more than a congestion focused tool.’

3.8.2 Conditions are suggested relating to contamination if discovered on site during construction, details of measures to reduce transport related emissions and informatives governing the need for a site waste management plan and hours of operation and conduct on site during construction.       

4.      REPRESENTATIONS

 

4.1    Cllr Naghi has requested that in the event of a recommendation for approval the application be reported to Planning Committee for the following reasons:  

·       It is a major application which will change the type of development that has up to now been allowed on Eclipse Park and will be of serious concern to local residents.

·       Approval of retail development here will inevitably lead to similar applications for this site leading to a major out of town shopping area resulting in a massive increase in disturbance, traffic, local congestion and air pollution along one of Maidstone's Pollution Hot-spots. 

·       It would seriously affect existing town centre shops and the viability of our town centre.

·       The design of the proposed retail unit close to the perimeter of the local roads with minimum landscaping is totally unacceptable.

·       It is unacceptable for a series of environmental reasons and it also sits in the foreground of the Kent Downs AONB.

4.2    County Councillor Chittenden has made the following comments:

 

‘As the County Councillor for Maidstone North East Division I have received numerous emails and telephone calls from residents outlining their concerns in relation to this application.

 

I am also very concerned about this application and in particular how it will affect the local area, and also the serious risk it puts on the viability of the Town Centre.

 

My concerns are as follows:

 

·       The application is clearly contrary to Council policy i.e. the Maidstone Local Plan designates the Eclipse Park site for office and high tech uses (use classes B1 and B2) not retail.

·       Approval of retail development here will inevitably lead to further similar applications for this site and the evolution of a major out of town shopping area resulting in a substantial increase in disturbance, traffic and local congestion.

·       The proposed new retail warehouse and associated traffic management will exacerbate current traffic congestion, air and noise pollution being experienced in our area.

·       Approval of this application may damage the commercial viability of our town centre.

·       The new Government National Planning Policy Framework document champions a “Town Centre First” ethos within its retail chapter and states that new out of town shopping locations must be sustainable in transportation terms – this scheme would be completely reliant upon the car.

·       Ecological justification accompanying this proposal fails to acknowledge the presence of legally protected wildlife in close proximity to the application site and this is compounded by the recent levelling of the site and destruction of resident wildlife.

·       The scale and design of the proposed retail warehouse is unacceptable so close to the roadside and in the foreground of the Kent Downs AONB.

·       The urban design approach with a large building set in a huge expanse of car parking allows little space for landscaping to screen and soften the proposed development.

·       The proposed car park area does not feature any trees to soften its visual impact landscaping – this is totally unacceptable in this sensitive location. The extent of car parking also risks exacerbating ongoing problems with run-off onto the adjacent Bearsted Road, which is already a known surface water flooding hotspot.

·       The lack of soft landscaping within the proposed layout means that a Sustainable Urban Drainage solution appears practically unachievable.

·       The proposed planting scheme contains non-native plants uncharacteristic of our area with little value for wildlife.

·       The development brief prepared for this site called for “green roofs”, to soften the impact of any development here in long views from the Downs and reduce run-off problems. This scheme does not utilise “green roof” technology.

 

4.3    Eight representations in support of the application have been received including a letter of support from Locate in Kent. Comments made are summarised as follows

 

·      This is much needed retail space along the M20 at Maidstone

·      It will bring jobs during its construction and when the store is open.

·      The ongoing road improvements should solve any traffic problems

·      Look forward to store opening 

·      Will bring much needed jobs after the closure of Comet, Blockbusters, Jessops and Whatman

·      Will encourage people to come to Maidstone

 

4.3.1 Locate in Kent state that Eclipse Park is one of Kent’s strategic sites offering grade A commercial development opportunities in a high profile location adjacent to a key transport route. It is therefore important for Kent’s offer to inward investment.

 

In recent years particularly since the onset of the recession Locate in Kent state they have observed the relative success in terms of active construction projects of mixed use schemes/employment areas which seek to combine quality of life/retail/leisure benefits with conventional employment generating uses.

 

Locate in Kent volunteers its strong support for the proposed significant investment by Next at Home on the basis that such a retail destination could be expected to boost the profile and hence wider success of Eclipse Park as one of Maidstone’s premier office locations. There are a number of comparable examples around Kent where this has proved to be the case.

 

4.4    Thirty-seven representations objecting to the proposals including CPRE Protect Kent have been received along with forms of objection signed by the occupiers of 22 of the properties in Shaw Close, which lies to the west of Eclipse Park which were sent directly to the Leader of the Council. Objections are raised on the following (summarised) grounds. 

 

·      It is contrary to the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan which designates the site for B1 and B2 not retail uses

·      It contravenes the National Planning Policy Framework which advises a Town Centre first approach and would decrease footfall in the town centre and weaken the local economy

·      Would adversely affect legally protected wildlife

·      Would harm the setting and foreground of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)

·      As anybody who has shopped in the county town over the past few years will have realised, the quantity and quality of retail outlets in the town centre is declining. The effects of the recession have led to vacant premises scattered around, not just the older shopping areas but also the Mall (Chequers Centre) and even Fremlin Walk. Competition with Bluewater, Tunbridge Wells and Canterbury is acute. It hardly seems sensible to introduce further competition at such a time. Some few years ago residents were assured that no such competition would be allowed

·      The area under consideration is already struggling badly with traffic flow. Any additional traffic in the area will undoubtedly exacerbate the problem.

·      People had been led to believe that this site was not available for retail outlets but for more high tech industries, attracting quality jobs. Undoubtedly, the proposed retail development will attract low paid jobs only; perhaps Maidstone deserves better when there are so many retail sites in the area empty

·      If one retail outlet is allowed, others will inevitably follow, further harming the town centre

·      It would already seem that the green roofs have been abandoned. The urban design is completely out of keeping with this area and the introduction of non-native plants show scant regard for the local indigenous wildlife and population

·      The large areas of car parking will increase surface water run-off and flooding in the area

·      The site has limited potential for transport links

·      Maidstone Borough Council has sought to achieve a high level of sustainability within new commercial development, in compliance with regional and national guidance. This scheme does not incorporate sustainability innovations in terms of renewable energy generation or drainage technology

·      The submitted landscaping plan footprint is not sufficient in area to mitigate for the scale of the proposed development nor is it sustainable for the trees proposed - large trees such as oak and lime require space to grow and the constraints of the proposed narrow perimeter strip left for landscaping means that the new trees are ultimately doomed. The narrow strip of land left for landscaping is insufficient to provide a wildlife network and therefore fails to comply with the NPPF - bringing no "net gain for wildlife"

·      The impacts from lighting / polarising light will be negative in terms of quality of life for residents on Vinters Park estate and for wildlife within the Vinters Valley Park Local Nature Reserve - both to the immediate south of Bearsted Road

·      The development will result in extra noise, litter, overspill parking and HGV deliveries all harming the amenities of  nearby residents

·      Adverse impact on air quality

  

4.5    Objections have also been received on behalf of Land Securities and Harvestore, two representations from The Mall Limited Partnership and from Maidstone Town Centre Management. 

 

4.6    Maidstone Town Centre Management (MTCM) object on three main grounds, the impact on the town centre, town centre opportunities and Eclipse Park land use. There is concern that the proposed fashion lines and the ‘at home’ range will directly compete with the town centre retail offering and have a considerable direct impact on the town centre. They see the way forward for Maidstone is to pursue retail investment for the Town Centre to ensure its sustainability into the future and they seek the support of the Council in focussing wholly on the identification of investment opportunities which both safeguard and promote Town Centre retail capability.

 

4.7    MTCM state they are encouraged by the decision of the Next Group to invest in Maidstone but consider the choice of site is not correct and that they have not given sufficient consideration to undertaking the expansion in the Town Centre itself. There is sufficient available space in the Town Centre to meet Next’s requirements moreover; they consider there are other possible locations on the west side of the Medway or at Maidstone East Station. Expansion by Next in these locations would complement the growth of the Town Centre as opposed to the direct competition that the current proposals would result in. They also comment on recent statements by the landowners that the strategic aim for development on Eclipse Park is to source a mix of offices and hotel and investment opportunities. MTCM support such a strategy and understood that this was the preferred option for the Council. They urge the Council to restate this through their planning policy and strategy for the Eclipse Park site and that the Council should reject the application.  

 

4.8    The objections submitted on behalf of Land Securities and Harvestore are summarised as follows:

·      The companies have been in discussion with the Council regarding the redevelopment of Newnham Court for a considerable period against the background of a Strategic Site allocation for retail development. They comment that weight can be attached to the draft strategic allocation of Newnham Court as a future retail development site.

(Members will be aware that at Cabinet on 13 March 2013 the allocation of Newnham Court as a Strategic Site for retail development was approved for development management purposes) 

·      In relation to the sequential test set out at Paragraph 24 of the NPPF they confirm that sites should be assessed in terms of the sequential test as to their suitability, availability and viability. They also refer to the still extant PPS4 Practice Guidance. They note that the Newnham Court site has been recognised by the applicants in their retail assessment as suitable and available but that they state it is unviable.

 

In response to this claim it is stated that the viability test is concerned with ‘judging whether there is a reasonable prospect that development will occur on a site’ and that the correct approach to be used when there is an alternative site currently being promoted by an alternative developer as set out in the guidance is ‘Where alternative sites are being actively promoted for new development by a developer/retailer, this is a reasonable indicator that the location is viable’ (para 6.49 of the guidance).

 

It is stated that the Council is fully aware that the Newnham Court site is being actively promoted for retail development through the discussions that have take place with the Council, the development agreement that is in place between Land Securities and Harvestore, the on-going discussions with potential occupiers and also agreements that have been reached with existing occupiers in respect of their relocation including the Notcutts garden centre which will relocate to a new centre on the site with increased display space, the strategic allocation, EIA screening/scoping reports have been submitted and project architects and other consultants have been appointed with a view to submission in late spring/early summer of an application. It is contended that it is quite evident that there is a reasonable prospect that the development of Newnham Court will occur. 

       

·      They state that the only evidence put forward by WYG in support of the view that the development of Newnham Court would be unviable is contained in appendix 8 of their assessment:

 

“Although we understand that the current owners are looking at redevelopment options, this may prove both lengthy and costly due to the number of current occupiers on the site. This uncertainly around timings, as well as the costs involved with the comprehensive redevelopment of the site, is likely to impact upon the viability for the proposed development.”

 

Land Securities/Harvestore accept that Newnham Court is a reasonably complex development proposition, and that the strategy for relocation of existing occupiers and agreeing leases with new occupiers takes time to conclude. However, they contend that it is a mistake to say that this means the development of the site is ‘unviable’. A complex site and an unviable site are not the same thing, and there is ample evidence to demonstrate the opposite is true.

 

·      They reject the applicant’s conclusion that the Newnham Court can be discounted as part of the sequential assessment. The issue which then needs to be addressed is whether or not Newnham Court is sequentially preferable for retail development compared to the chosen site at Eclipse Park. We believe that Newnham Court is clearly the preferred site, for the following reasons:

 

·      It is already an established destination for shoppers. Developing a second adjacent site for retail development would not allow linked trips to take place between the two sites, which would be unsustainable.

 

·      Newnham Court is large and there are many opportunities for linked trips to be maximised between different retail formats in any redevelopment scheme.

 

·      Newnham Court is a (as yet unadopted) (officer comment: when the letter was submitted) strategic retail allocation in the Core Strategy. Eclipse Park is allocated for employment uses, and there would be conflicts with the emerging development plan strategy if Eclipse Park were to be developed for retail uses.

   

·      There will be adequate suitable space available on the new Newnham Court development to accommodate the format of store which Next is currently promoting. By doing this the store would benefit from a high number of linked trips and associated spin off benefits that would be associated with its co-location with other complementary retail and leisure uses. Indeed, Land Securities and Harvestore would welcome Next as a tenant on the new development.

·      For the above reasons we do not believe that the applicants’ retail statement has properly addressed the sequential test, and we would request that the Council asks the applicants to properly address this point.

 

4.9    Two separate representations objecting to the application have been submitted by The Mall Partnership Limited, the owner of the Mall Chequers shopping Centre. The representations raises strong objections to the proposals on a number of grounds: Compliance with the sequential test, impact on town centre investment, impact on the vitality and viability of Maidstone Town Centre and loss of employment land.

       

A.  Sequential test

 

They state that they have serious concerns about the logic of the proposal and rationale for a Next store that according to the application submission can only trade viably in this out–of-centre location. Next has a good representation in the town centre and their two existing stores complement each other and offer strong trading locations. They can see no difference in the business model of the proposed format and the ‘standard’ town centre stores whilst a larger area is devoted to ‘home’ ranges the fashion offer is no more than a duplication of the existing town centre offer and as such is a threat to the town centre rather than being ‘complementary.’

 

The Council should note that there is over 6000sqm of space in a single unit that could be made available within The Mall that could be made available to the applicant or other retail operators in a short time period and in advance of the build period for a site at Eclipse Park. It is also stated that there are longer term opportunities to extend The Mall and they would welcome discussions with the Council and the applicant on these, but they should be considered as part of the sequential assessment. The applicants have not approached The Mall regarding opportunities to provide the new floorspace within or as an extension to The Mall. 

 

(A subsequent meeting was held between The Mall and Next and a brochure given to Next detailing how a store of the size and concept proposed at Eclipse Park could be accommodated within The Mall. This brochure also illustrated how The Mall could be refurbished to enhance its offer. A copy of the brochure has been submitted as part of the representations from The Mall on the application).    

 

Insufficient justification has been submitted regarding why the fashion and home offers need to be located in one store. Further evidence should be provided as to why the two components cannot be disaggregated.

 

The applicant should be therefore asked to provide further justification for their proposals in terms of the following:

 

·      Why retention of The Mall store and/or an expansion to Fremlin Walk cannot achieve the same trading objectives given Maidstone Town Centre’s strategic role  

·      Ability to disaggregate the goods element of the scheme and trade the ‘home’ concept as single operation within the Town Centre

·      Why there is such a dependency on surface-level car parking when the store will be showroom for goods that re otherwise available on-line and are therefore capable of being delivered rather than taken away by customers

·      Open book viability information regarding the viability statement made at para 5.5.4 of the retail statement 

 

The sequential assessment is also deficient in relation to the following elements:

 

·      The applicant has disregarded the potential to deliver the proposed store within or as an extension to The Mall this would comply with the Town Centre first approach

·      West of the River Medway: potential sites in this area should be considered as although out-of-centre they are well connected and closer to the Town Centre

·      Maidstone East and adjacent Royal Mail sorting office: Insufficient viability and suitability evidence has been supplied by the applicant to dismiss this site. Appendix 8 of the retail statement suggests that a store in this location would lead to the closure of the Fremlin Walk store due to the effect of loss of trade. By disaggregating the store components and providing a ‘home’ element on this site there would be sufficient proximity to an expanded next fashion store to support the viability of both parts of the business. The effect of a fashion store in this location also suggests that the proposed scheme and the Town Centre businesses are not that complimentary but would be direct competitors.

·      Springfield Quarter: The applicants seek to dismiss this site as the site is 1km from the edge of the primary shopping area and thus could have a negative impact on the Town Centre. This does not sit with the fact that the proposed site is only marginally further out at 2.5km from the primary shopping area and that both are on good arterial routes, this suggests that the impact of the proposed store could be greater than set out in the assessment.

 

B.   Impact on Town Centre investment

 

    The Mall are intending to undertake a full refurbishment of the Centre in addition to re-letting vacant floorspace and securing longer term leases for the former anchor stores.

 

    However, if it becomes clear to retailers that out of centre space is available and supported by the Council this will divert attention from these Town Centre opportunities and hinder inward investment.

 

C. Impact upon Town Centre and viability       

 

    The retail assessment is considered to fundamentally underestimate the level of direct trade diversion from Maidstone Town Centre and the wider effects of reduced footfall and linked trips exacerbated by the applicant’s decision to leave The Mall. The premise of the scheme is the opportunity to draw trade back to Maidstone. However, the claw-back (from Bluewater and other competing centres) is overstated (only 27% of the store’s turnover would be drawn from facilities outside Maidstone as set out in the retail assessment).

 

    The applicants only consider that 27% of the store’s turnover will be drawn from the Town Centre. This is despite stating that the store will draw 55% of its turnover from Maidstone’s catchment where the Town Centre is a key destination and when the comments about Springfield Quarter are also taken into account.

 

They note that the store will act as a showroom for internet based customers and request that additional information regarding the implications of this facility and the impact on and source of competition for the Town Centre is submitted.

         

The store would not be complementary to the Town Centre, given the available range in the store the local population would have less reason to visit the Town Centre and anchor destinations such as The Mall. The impact is likely to be greater than the applicants estimate. Given that UK high Street are in decline and face unprecedented competition from internet sales and out of town shopping approval for this store would further harm the Town Centre, particularly since the applicants have already taken the decision to close one of its two Town Centre stores. The proposals should therefore be treated with utmost caution by the Council.

 

D. Loss of employment land

 

The application site is allocated for employment use in the adopted Local Plan as part of a larger employment allocation. Outline permission was granted in 2002 for B1 and B2 uses and this has been followed by a series of reserved matters approvals. The council reaffirmed its view that the application site should continue as an employment site in the emerging Core Strategy 2011. The proposals are therefore inconsistent with adopted and emerging planning policies/strategy for the site. The council would, if approval is given, need to be satisfied that there is sufficient justification for a departure from the Local Plan policy and the loss of allocated employment land.      

 

They conclude that there is sufficient justification to refuse planning permission due to the effect of the store on planned investment and the vitality and viability of Maidstone Town Centre and the failure to comply with the sequential test for site selection.

 

5.      CONSIDERATIONS

 

5.1    Site Description

 

5.1.1 The application site is located on the north side of the A249 Bearsted Road immediately to the east of the Hilton Hotel and to the south of the Towergate Insurance building. The site extends to approximately 0.9ha in area and is currently open and devoid of vegetation except on its southern and eastern boundaries where there is a hedgerow.

 

5.1.2 The site is bounded to the east by a section of the  A249, that provides a connecting link from Bearsted Road to junction 7 of the M20 Motorway and beyond to Detling and Sittingbourne. Its south east corner lies adjacent to a roundabout junction on Bearsted Road. To the east of the A249 link, lie Notcutts Garden Centre and the Newnham Court complex. Opposite the site on the south side of Bearsted Road is woodland that is part of the Vinters Valley Nature Reserve.

 

5.1.3 The western boundary of the site is formed by a completed access road to Eclipse Park that currently only allows ingress into Eclipse Park from Bearsted Road but not egress. However, highway improvement works are currently taking place in Bearsted Road that would provide a signalised junction that would allow right turns into Eclipse Park from Bearsted Road and egress in both directions from Eclipse Park onto Bearsted Road.   

 

5.1.4 Levels within the site rise northwards towards the motorway junction and the A249 is set at a progressively higher level than the site, the further north from the roundabout on Bearsted Road that one moves.

 

5.1.5 Elsewhere within Eclipse Park there are three other B1 office buildings, two fronting Bearsted Road and one fronting Old Sittingbourne Road. These are sited on higher ground to the west of the Hilton Hotel. 

 

5.1.6 The application site lies within the defined urban area of Maidstone and forms part of a designated employment site allocated under policy ED1 of the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan 2000. The site is also subject to the provisions of Policy T17 of the Borough-wide Local Plan that allocated part of the wider employment designation as a ‘Park & Ride’ site. This has since been constructed and is located on land to the north and north-west of the Towergate building.

 

5.2    Proposal

 

5.2.1 The application is a full planning application. The proposals comprise the erection of a Class A1 retail store with a gross internal floor area of 5,748sqm selling fashion goods and home wares, with an ancillary café. The building is arranged over three floors with the ground floor indicated for womenswear, childrenswear and home departments, the first floor for menswear and home departments and the café as well as a stock room and a partial second floor would be used for storage and staff facilities.  A total of 166 parking spaces are shown to be provided on the site, 152 for customers, 4 staff car parking spaces and 10 mobility impaired spaces, together with 26 cycle parking spaces and 4 motorcycle spaces.

 

3.2.2             The application details indicate that 1,479m (44.5% of the total retail sales floorspace) will be devoted to the sale of fashion goods and 1,841m (55.5%) will be for home ware goods and that the café would amount to some 198m. The percentage split between fashion goods floorspace and home ware goods floorspace has been amended.  The originally submitted scheme had a marginally higher percentage of the floorspace given over to fashion goods  (45.6%) and accordingly lower percentage devoted to home wares (54.3%).

 

3.2.3   The proposed store is shown located on the western side of the site some 30m from its boundary with the A249 link to the M20 junction 7 and is located adjacent to the existing internal access road serving Eclipse Park with a separation of approximately 5m from the road. The car parking associated with the store is shown to the east and south of the building and this is accessed from the internal Eclipse Park access road. The service yard is located to the rear (north side) of the store, also accessed directly off the internal Eclipse Park access road. The position of the store was changed and moved westwards into its current location after the application was submitted. 

 

3.2.4   The proposed building has a ‘square’ footprint and is approximately 51m x 51m in size and approximately 14m in height. The building is orientated south-west to north-east roughly following the line of the adjacent A249. The main entrance/front elevation is located on the south west side of the building. 

 

3.2.5   The building is designed with a front elevation that is predominantly formed with full height glazing surmounted by pre formed stone cladding set back behind a colonnade, with the columns formed of pre-cast stone and having a 1m high ragstone plinth to the columns. The remainder of the front elevation would be framed with the same pre formed stone that would also sit above a 1m high ragstone plinth. 

 

3.2.6   The east and west elevations would feature a full-height return glazed screen again surmounted by pre-cast stone cladding, adjacent to the front glazed elevation and the remaining walls would be formed with pre-formed brick panels set into a dark grey steel frame surround. The west elevation would additionally have a dark grey fire escape door framed by dark grey flat metal cladding. The east elevation would have a further full height glazed panel at its northern end surmounted by pre-cast stone cladding. The upper glazed panels would be fitted with opaque glazing.

 

3.2.7             This approach using the brick panels in a steel frame would extend to the north elevation which is indicated to have two full height glazed areas with cladding over, again, the upper panels would be fitted with opaque glazing. In addition, loading bay and fire exit doors are also proposed. The loading bay would also feature a retractable canopy.  

 

3.2.8   The building would be capped-off at roof level by a pre-cast stone perimeter edge beam, running around all sides of the building. The roof would be hidden behind a parapet.

 

3.2.9   The application details indicate that the store has been designed to achieve a BREEAM Very Good rating.   

 

3.2.10                 The applicants have indicated that the development amounts to a capital investment of some £9million. They have also set out in their submission the number of jobs that would be created by the development and have compared these to their existing stores in the Town Centre.

       

Contract Type	Fremlin Walk	Chequers Centre	Eclipse Park
Permanent Jobs	49	42	139
Temporary Jobs	12	8	35
Apprentices	2	2	5
Total number of jobs	63	52	179

 

Of the 139 permanent jobs, there would be 19 full time and 120 part time posts. This equates to 49 full time equivalent jobs. Next are proposing to close their store in the Chequers Centre as the lease is due for expiry next year. There are currently 52 posts in the Chequers Centre and the applicants state that all of their employees would be given the option to transfer to Eclipse Park. The overall net gain in these jobs would thus be 97. It is stated that these jobs range from high end management roles to apprenticeships and will be available for local residents though the Local Job Centre plus. There will also be jobs (total unspecified) created by the construction phase of the development.

 

5.2.11 In total, Next’s job provision in Maidstone would be approximately 250 employees.

 

5.2.12  The application was accompanied by the following documents:

·           Design and Access Statement

·           Planning Statement

·           Retail Statement

·           Transport Assessment/Addendum and Update note

·           Travel Plan

·           Statement of Community Involvement

·           External Lighting Statement

·           Land Contamination Preliminary Risk Assessment

·           Phase One Habitat and Ecology Appraisal

·           Foul and Surface Water Drainage Statement

·           Office accommodation supply and demand in Maidstone

 

5.3    Principle of Development/Planning Policy

 

1) The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

 

5.3.1 The National Planning Policy Framework, which was released in March 2012, 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. 

 

5.3.2 The National Planning Policy Framework 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. Given that the South East Plan 2009 was revoked in March 2013 (after the application was submitted), I consider the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework to carry significant weight in the determination of this planning application.

 

5.3.3 The National Planning Policy Framework 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.

 

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

 

5.3.5 The National Planning Policy Framework 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 National Planning Policy Framework, 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 National Planning Policy Framework 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.

 

5.3.6 The National Planning Policy Framework 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 Town Centre and the need to demonstrate that more sequentially preferable sites have been considered. The National Planning Policy Framework 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)  Planning for Growth

 

5.3.7 The Government in promoting the regeneration of the economy and sees the role of the planning system as promoting sustainable economic development and jobs. The Planning for Growth statement was published in March 2011 and sets out what the government expects local planning authorities to do to achieve these aims. The statement is 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.’

        

5.3.8 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’

 

3) Development Plan Policies

 

5.3.9 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 Development Plan now solely comprises the saved policies of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 (saved in 2007). The South East Plan 2009 was largely revoked on 25 March after the submission of the application. The retained parts of this plan do not apply to this Borough.    

 

5.3.10         The application site is located within land allocated for B2 employment uses under saved policy ED1 within the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan (2000). Clearly, this proposal would not fall within this use class - 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 the Development 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.

 

5.3.11 Policy ENV6 of the Borough-wide Local Plan requires appropriate landscaping to be carried out part of development proposals, Policy ENV49 requires consideration of the impact of external lighting seeking to reduce its impact in terms of amenity, light spillage, impact on the wider landscape and public safety and Policy T13 seeks to ensure an appropriate level of car parking for developments. 

 

         Retail Policy Context

 

5.3.12         There is no development plan policy for retailing on the application site. 

 

5.3.13         Policy R3 of the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan (2000) identifies the town centre as a regional scale comparison goods centre and states that proposals which undermine the strategy for, and the vitality and viability of, the town centre will not be permitted. Policies R7 and R8 define the core and secondary shopping areas of Maidstone Town Centre and Policy R8, with relevance to the sequential test, allocates Maidstone East for bulky goods retailing.

 

         Policy R2 relates to major retail proposals and requires that a sequential approach to siting is followed and that when out of centre locations are chosen this should be adjacent to existing out of centre retail development. The policy also refers to the ‘need’ for retailing. Such a needs test is no longer an explicit requirement of national policy.  Applicants are not required to demonstrate need for their particular retail proposals.

 

         Policy CS2 for the town centre in the emerging Core Strategy was the subject of public consultation (Reg. 18) in September 2011. It defines a town centre boundary and identifies the centre as the preferred location for major retail development.

 

5.3.14         The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires local planning authorities to apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses (including retail) where the application site is not within an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date Local Plan (paragraph 24).  Only if appropriate sites are not available firstly in the town centre or secondly in edge of centre locations should out of centre sites be considered. For edge and out of town sites, preference should be given to sites that are accessible and well connected to the town centre.

 

5.3.15         For retail applications of more than 2,500sqm on out of centre sites which are not in accordance with an up to date Local Plan, a retail impact assessment is required to include an assessment of the impact of the proposal on;

·      Existing, committed and planned public and private investment in the centre/s; and

·      Town centre vitality and viability.

 

5.3.16         The National Planning Policy Framework states that “where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have a significant adverse impact, on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused” (paragraph 27).

 

         Further guidance on the application of the sequential and impact tests is provided in specific practice guidance originally issued by CLG as a companion document to Planning Policy Statement 4.  This guidance is still extant; it was not revoked when the National Planning Policy Framework was published.

 

5.3.17 The Council has appointed specialist consultants (DTZ) to advise it on the retail aspects of this application.

 

Sequential Test

 

5.3.18 The applicants have submitted a sequential sites’ assessment which considers alternative sites’ suitability, availability and viability for the development proposed.  The alternative sites that have been assessed by the applicants are as follows (in no specific order):

 

·      Maidstone East and the Royal Mail Sorting Office

·      Former Army & Navy Store, Week Street

·      Former Somerfield Store, King Street

·      Springfield

·      Newnham Court

·      Len House

 

In addition the applicants provided supplementary information on the following sites whose potential came to light after the submission of the application.

 

·      Former T J Hughes Store, The Mall

·      Former BHS/Comet Stores, South Aylesford Retail Park.  Whilst this retail park is just beyond the borough boundary in Tonbridge and Malling borough, it is closely related to the main built up area of Maidstone.

 

5.3.19 In undertaking this assessment, and reaching their conclusions, the applicants have stated the following requirements for the site:

·      A site of approximately 1ha to accommodate:

§  a quality 3 storey building

§  secure and efficient servicing

§  170 free, surface level car parking spaces

·      A location which is readily accessible and not already congested

 

5.3.20 The applicants conclude that there are no suitable, available and viable town centre sites, or edge of centre sites, which can accommodate the development. 

 

For each of the assessed sites, the tables below set out:

·      A brief description of the site,

·      a summary of the applicants’ key conclusions for the site

·      Consideration of the site.  This is informed by the advice of the Council’s retail planning consultants

 

Maidstone East/Royal Mail Sorting Office

Site Description: This whole site is approximately 3.6ha in size. It is an edge of centre site, being some 200m from the primary shopping area (comprising the core shopping frontage (policy R7) and the secondary shopping frontage (Policy R8) both as defined in the Maidstone Borough wide Local Plan) at its nearest point. The Maidstone East part of the wider site is allocated for retail (bulky goods) in the Maidstone Borough wide Local Plan (Policy R6) and also for offices, residential and hotel use. This site was the subject of a recent EIA screening opinion request for a foodstore (9,000sqm), smaller retail units (831sqm) and station improvements.

Applicants Assessment (summary):   Availability: whilst the site may not be immediately available, it may come forward in the short/medium term.  Development will require complex phasing. Suitability: A foodstore is the most appropriate use of the site.  This is demonstrated by the emerging scheme for the site which is foodstore led. The site suffers from poor visibility from the main retail areas of the town centre which would be essential for a comparison retailer such as Next. Viability: The site is a secondary location. The proposed Next store would not be viable here as it would require free, surface level car parking. The Next at Fremlin Walk would close due to loss of trade. Redevelopment to provide a single comparison unit (Next) may prove less viable (than the emerging foodstore proposal) and all parties may not agree to it in isolation.   Subsequent submission: Car parking on this site will be charged for. The site is close to the town centre and already congested and is less likely to draw customers from the surrounding areas. A development agreement has not yet been signed with a foodstore operator and until this happens, the project is not financially capable of happening. The site is not available to Next at present.

Consideration: Availability: This site is the subject of current development interest. There are active proposals to bring this site forward as evidenced by the recent screening report request. As the proposals have not yet reached planning application stage there is an apparent timely opportunity to adapt the emerging scheme to accommodate the applicants’ proposals.  Further, the agents for the developers of the Maidstone East site have confirmed that a scheme to accommodate a Next/Next Home store on this site has been put forward to Next. The scheme comprises a foodstore alongside a Next/Next Home of sufficient size to meet the retailer’s requirements with dedicated car parking for the Next unit of some 125-150 spaces.  Suitability: The Council’s consultants advise that the size of the site presents opportunities to accommodate the application proposal, including car parking, as part of a wider retail-led scheme, possibly alongside a foodstore. The site is accessible, being adjacent to Maidstone East station with good pedestrian links to the primary shopping area.  It is also close to A229 dual carriageway (Royal Engineers Road).  Furthermore the Maidstone East site is allocated for retail (bulky goods) in the Maidstone Borough wide Local Plan.  Viability: The Council’s consultants advise that the site is in a prominent location. It has close and direct access to the primary shopping area. Overall: The site is sequentially preferable to the application site. It is considered potentially capable of accommodating the application development.

 

 

Former Army & Navy Store, Week Street

Site Description: This is a three storey building which measures approximately 890sqm at ground floor. It has been vacant since House of Fraser relocated to Fremlin Walk in 2005. It is located within the primary shopping area.

Applicants Assessment (summary) Availability: the site is available Suitability: the site is not large enough to accommodate the application development Viability: it would not be viable to have 2 Next stores trading so close together. The store would need to have free surface level car parking to be viable.

Consideration: There is the potential for the site to be redeveloped. Nonetheless, there are likely to be real limitations on the total quantum of floorspace achievable.  Further, it is understood that part of the ground floor has recently been let.

 

Former Somerfield Store, King Street

Site Description: This site comprises the former Somerfield unit and the multi-storey car park above and is owned by the Council. The site is some 0.2ha in size.  It is an in centre site, as it falls within the primary shopping area (comprising the core shopping frontage (Policy R7) and the secondary shopping frontage (Policy R8) both as defined in the Maidstone Borough wide Local Plan). With the adjacent bowling alley site, the site area would extend to 0.45ha.

Applicants Assessment (summary) Availability: the site may come forward for redevelopment in the medium term. Suitability: the site would not be large enough for the proposed development.  With the adjacent bowling alley site a decent sized retail unit could be achieved but it would not be sufficient for the application proposal. Viability: this is a marginal location for a prime comparison unit. There is uncertainty about if and when the adjacent bowling alley site will come forward.  This uncertainty, and the costs associated with the bowling alley relocation and the replacement of the existing car parking is likely to make the scheme unviable.   Subsequent submission: this area has relatively lower levels of footfall and would not generate sufficient sales to meet company criteria. At 0.45ha the site (the former Somerfield and bowling alley) is smaller than the application site (0.9ha). In conjunction with the lack of surface level car parking, Next would not operate a store in this location.

Consideration: Availability: The Council has resolved to demolish the building and to replace it with a surface level car park whilst future development options are considered. The adjacent bowling alley is scheduled to relocate to Lockmeadow in the summer. Suitability: The Council’s retail consultants advise that, whilst the former Somerfield store alone is not of a sufficient size to physically accommodate the proposed store ‘footprint’ and surface level car parking of 170 spaces, it is capable of accommodating some or all of the development if the retailer were to demonstrate flexibility on issues such as scale and format and on-site car parking. The site could accommodate approximately 4,000sqm over three storeys, approximately 5,500sqm over four. With the adjacent bowling alley site the combined site area would be 0.45ha.  The combined site is again considered suitable and of a sufficient size to accommodate the proposed Next and Next Home store, with some flexibility on the part of Next, particularly with respect to car parking owing to the site’s town centre location. Viability: The site has good pedestrian links to the rest of the primary shopping area, as well as with the bus station and town centre car parks and it occupies a prominent and viable town centre location.  Moreover, if Next and Next Home were to develop one of its new ‘flagship’ stores on this site, it would serve to substantially enhance levels of footfall in this part of King Street, which is already situated in close proximity to a number of attractions including The Mall, key office occupiers, town centre car parks and the bus station.   Overall: the site is sequentially preferable to the application site. If the applicants were to set aside the stated requirement for free, on site surface level car parking, the former Somerfield site could potentially accommodate a store of the broad quantum of floorspace sought over 4 storeys.  If the former Somerfield site is brought forward with the adjacent bowling alley site, which is understood to be becoming available, the application proposal could be accommodated, again subject to appropriate flexibility over car parking.

 

 

 

Springfield

Site Description: This site comprises the G E Healthcare paper mill and the adjacent site to the north east which has an extant consent for offices, residential and small scale retail/community uses. It is an out of centre site.

Applicants Assessment (summary) Availability: sufficient land to accommodate the application development is likely to come forward in the short to medium term. Suitability: there are aspirations for employment led development on this site. The distance from the town centre and route along the dual carriageway would not be ideal for a large comparison retailer. Viability: a store this close to the town centre could have a negative effect on the town centre by drawing trade away. The Next store at Fremlin Walk would close.

Consideration: Availability:  the site (or part of it) is potentially available in the short/medium term. Suitability: it is an out of centre site which is nonetheless significantly closer to the town centre than the application site. This should increase the potential for linked trips between this site and centre compared with the application site. The actual most direct pedestrian route, however, would be along the busy dual carriageway A229 (Royal Engineers Road) which is likely to deter such trips to some extent. Viability: the site is not an established retail location.  Overall: there are better, alternative and more sequentially preferable sites in/at the edge of the town centre considered capable of accommodating the proposed store.

 

Newnham Court

Site Description: Newnham Court is an established garden centre and shopping village located just off Junction 7 of M20.  The application site at Eclipse Park is sited on the opposite side of the A249 to Newnham Court.

Applicants Assessment (summary) Availability: The site may come forward for redevelopment in the short to medium term. Suitability: As an established retail destination, the site is considered suitable for retail use. As there are no units of sufficient size currently vacant, the application proposal would need to come forward as part of a comprehensive redevelopment and be subject to a full Retail Impact Assessment and sequential test. Given its proximity to Eclipse Park, the site is not considered sequentially preferable to the application site. Viability: there is uncertainty about the timing and costs of a comprehensive redevelopment.  This will impact on the likely viability of the proposed development.

Consideration: Suitability: Newnham Court is an established comparison retailing location.  The site is identified as a strategic site for comparison retail development of recognised out of centre formats in the emerging Local Plan (Policy SS4). Availability: There is current developer interest in the retail redevelopment of this site.  EIA screening opinion request has been submitted. In their objection letter to this application, the landowner/developers of Newnham Court state their intention to submit a planning application in late Spring/early summer.  Viability: The site is being promoted for retail redevelopment by a developer which specialises in such development. This is an indicator of the site’s viability for this use. Overall: Like the application site, this is an out of centre site.  It is an established comparison retailing location. If the proposal was for a recognised out of centre format store, this site is a better location to accommodate the quantum of floorspace sought.  Importantly, however, there are other more sequentially preferable sites in and at the edge of the town centre for this specific development which should be selected in preference.

 

 

Len House

Site Description: This site includes the Grade II listed building Len House and the open area to the rear used for car sales. Part of the site is allocated for employment uses under Maidstone Borough wide Local Plan policy ED2.  It is an edge of centre site. It is approximately 0.4ha including the outside forecourt.

Applicants Assessment (summary) Availability: the site is currently occupied and occupier relocation plans are unknown. The site may come forward for redevelopment in the medium term. Suitability: the building is too small to accommodate the proposed development. The site would have to be fully redeveloped to accommodate the development. The site suffers from a lack of free car parking. The site is well away from the main shopping areas of the town. Viability: It would be costly to relocate the existing use. The site would need to be fully redeveloped to accommodate the proposed development which would impact on the overall viability of development.

Consideration: Availability:  The site may come forward in the medium term. Suitability: Redevelopment of the Grade II listed building would not be appropriate.  Part of the site is allocated for B1 uses (Policy ED2).  Viability: the site is   edge of centre.  Pedestrian connections to/from the primary shopping area are less direct than for other town centre/edge of centre sites considered here which could constrain the site’s viability for comparison retailing. Overall: There are better, alternative sequentially preferable sites capable of accommodating the proposed development.

 

 

Former T J Hughes unit, The Mall

Site Description: The store is within The Mall.  It comprises approximately 6,000sqm (gross) of floorspace split over three floors (approximately 1,700sqm at ground floor, 2,500sqm at upper floor with the reminder at basement for back of house functions). The site is an in centre site.

Applicants’ Further submission (summary): The unit is in a poor location within Maidstone.  The lack of surface level parking means Next would never operate a ‘full range’ Next/Next at Home store from this location. There has been little recent investment in The Mall and the centre has declined. The Mall has presented proposals to Next for how the combined fashion/homeware offer could be accommodated within this unit. Based on the criteria Next use to financially appraise schemes, a new store in this unit would not be approved by the Next Board.

Consideration: Availability:  The store is currently let to Beales on a short term basis with a mutual break clause in the contract. The site is therefore potentially available to Next. Suitability: the quantum of floorspace is broadly comparable with that proposed on the application site (6,161sqm) and subject to some flexibility from the retailer, could accommodate the application proposals. The unit has existing servicing arrangements and space for the retailer’s back of house functions. It is an in centre site in an established indoor shopping centre. The Mall has a 1,000 space multi-storey car park. Viability: The site, in the Council’s advisors’ view, is a viable location in market terms by virtue of footfall, proximity of other retailers in the shopping centre and connectivity to the rest of the town centre. This view is further supported by The Mall’s submission detailing how a store of the size and concept being promoted by Next could be accommodated within this unit. Overall: the store is capable of accommodating the proposals if the retailer were to demonstrate flexibility on issues such as scale, format and design.  The existing car parking provision in the town centre would spare the need for dedicated surface level free car parking of some 170 spaces.

 

Former BHS/Comet Stores, South Aylesford Retail Park

Site Description: South Aylesford Retail Park is an established out of centre retail park accessed off A20 at Aylesford.

Applicants’ Further submission (summary): the former BHS unit is in the process of being sub divided to accommodate another tenant.  The floorspace which could be accommodated in the remaining space with a mezzanine is some 45,000sqft rather than the 61,875sqft GIA applied for. The site suffers from poor visibility as it is masked by other units. This would affect profitability. The Comet unit is 20,000sqft restricted to bulky goods and with no permission in place for a mezzanine.

Consideration: Availability:  There are 2 vacant units.  The former BHS unit is currently being subdivided resulting in a unit of some 2,300sqm and the former Comet unit (1,870sqm).  These units are separated by an occupied Currys/PC World unit.  Suitability: These are modern units on an existing retail park. There is on-site surface level free car parking.  Notwithstanding the imminent sub-division of the Former BHS Store the applicants should discuss opportunities with the owners of South Aylesford Retail Park (The Crown Estate) to reconfigure the existing, remaining vacant space – including the Former Comet Store (1,870sqm) and the remainder of the Former BHS Store (c. 2,300sqm) – in order to accommodate the proposed store. Whilst the resultant ‘footprint’ would not be of a sufficient size to physically accommodate the proposed store, the retailer is required by national policy to demonstrate flexibility in terms of scale and format.  There is no evidence that a planning application to remove the bulky goods condition and/or insert a mezzanine floor in the Currys unit would be unsuccessful. Viability: This is considered to be a viable location for comparison shopping which benefits from a critical mass of existing retailers. Overall: Like the application site, this is an out of centre site.  It is potentially capable of accommodating the proposal and, as an established comparison retailing site, is considered to be a more appropriate location than the application site, recognising that there are also other more sequentially preferable sites in and at the edge of the town centre.

 

5.3.21         The Council’s consultants additionally considered the Baltic Wharf site, St Peters Street as a planning application for a supermarket on this site has recently been submitted.  The site is an out of centre site.  Additionally their assessment concluded that uncertainties over scheme viability, coupled with the site’s Policy ED2 allocation, did not render this site a firm alternative to the application site.

 

5.3.22         In respect of the sequential sites’ assessment, the council’s retail consultants make the following points:

·      The applicants have not identified an urgent need (in planning terms) for the proposed development. This means that sites which are not immediately available, but which are likely to become available in the next few years can be considered for the purposes of the sequential test.

·      The decision by a retailer to promote a business model which cannot be accommodated in a town centre does not justify discounting more sequentially preferable sites where these are available, suitable and viable. It is nonetheless necessary to balance commercial requirements with national (and local) planning policy policies.

·      44.5% of the net retail floorspace is dedicated to fashion (non-bulky) goods. Such goods would normally be sold in a town centre. This proportion of floorspace is not subsidiary to the homeware goods. The applicants state that the fashion floorspace is needed to support the homeware ranges in a stand alone store which, by virtue of its design and build quality, will be more than double the cost of a standard retail warehouse build. They assert that dropping the fashion ranges would undermine the viability of selling the expanded homeware ranges. Whilst it may be unreasonable to drop the fashion ranges in their entirety, there is not the clear evidence that a lower, more subsidiary quantum of floorspace would undermine the viability of the proposed store.   The retailer should demonstrate flexibility in format and design and propose a more modest retail build capable of accommodating their chosen business model.

·      The proposed store would incorporate a ‘click and collect’ service. It is not accepted that the benefits of this service could not be realised on a town centre site. Other operators offer such a service for both bulky and non bulky goods from town centre sites. 

·      The applicants’ site assessment is based on their stated requirements for the site. It is not accepted that the proposals would require their own car parking if located in the town centre; the town centre is well served by car parks. Further, the stated requirements would rule out most opportunities in town centres across the country.

·      The applicants have not sufficiently demonstrated flexibility and have not therefore satisfied the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Practice Guidance on need, impact and the sequential test.

 

5.3.23         There are three sites which are sequentially preferable to the application site and which it is considered could potentially accommodate a Next/Next Home store: 

1.  Maidstone East/Royal Mail Sorting office

1.  Former Somerfield Store, King Street with/without the adjacent bowling alley

2.  The former T J Hughes Unit, The Mall

 

5.3.24 There are clear benefits to directing new retail development to town centres. Focusing development into town centres better facilitates linked trips; for each trip into the town centre shoppers have the opportunity to visit a range of different stores and facilities to meet their shopping or other needs, providing for improved customer choice and competition.  Secondly, town centres generally are better served by a range of transport modes compared with out of centre locations. There is a clear ‘town centre first’ principle which underpins the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

5.3.25 It is also the case that the legitimate business needs of retailers should be taken into account when considering compliance with the sequential test.  The extant practice guidance on needs, impact and the sequential approach states “in every case it will be necessary to strike an appropriate balance between the requirements of the commercial sector and the requirements of national policy based on local circumstances” (paragraph 6.33).

 

5.3.26 Next is intending to deliver 20 or so of these ‘full range’ Next/Next at Home stores across the country. It is Next’s position that these stores are a new and unique format in the company’s portfolio of stores.  Notwithstanding the ‘town centre first’ approach espoused in national planning policy, none of the sites being progressed by Next are town centre sites. The applicant has a clear commercial desire to deliver both fashion and homeware goods within a single building as one of a number of ‘flagship’ stores across the country. There is an undoubted attraction for Next customers to have access to the full range of goods in a single store. Next has identified Maidstone as a location for growth in its homeware ranges. The applicants also state that having a large store in Maidstone town centre will not attract the out of town shopping trade from Gillingham/Sittingbourne and elsewhere in Kent that the application site would achieve. In essence the applicants’ argument is that these shoppers from further afield would be attracted to visit a Next store on the application site, with its convenient access from Junction 7 of M20, but would not be motivated to visit the same store if it were located in the town centre.

 

Weighing in the balance with these commercial considerations is the existence of the three sequentially preferable sites outlined above. The three town centre/edge of centre sites are all considered inherently appropriate for retail development and capable of accommodating the proposed development allowing for due flexibility from the retailer. In contrast with the application proposal, the occupation of any of these sites would positively support the commercial health of Maidstone town centre, bringing underused or vacant sites into use. Unlike the application proposal, which is a stand alone retail unit, there would be much greater opportunities for linked trips if one of these sites was taken up for the Next/Next Home proposal.  Further, the application proposal as presented has a significant proportion of its retail floorspace devoted to fashion goods (44.5%) which gives further weight to the appropriateness of a town centre site.  Such goods would normally be sold in a town centre.

 

In conclusion it is considered that the applicants have not satisfactorily demonstrated sufficient flexibility in coming to the conclusion that there are no more sequentially preferable sites for their proposal.  Consequently it is considered that the sequential test set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and in Policy R2 of the adopted Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan has not been met.  

 

 

           It is worth noting that the sites’ assessment considers two further locations which have the same sequential status as the application site; they are all out of centre sites. In contrast to the application site however these two sites are established retailing locations. They are:

 

1.   Vacant units at South Aylesford Retail Park

 2. Newnham Court

 

Notwithstanding that South Aylesford Retail Park is in Tonbridge & Malling borough, accommodating the Next proposals in the vacant units there would make use of existing retail space, rather than providing new retail floorspace in on a business park.  There would also be the opportunity for linked trips to the adjacent retailers, unlike for the application proposal which would be a stand alone retail unit. In this respect it is considered to be a preferable out of centre location to the application site.

 

Newnham Court is also an established out of centre shopping location which is being actively promoted for retail redevelopment by specialist developers.  This site has been positively identified for new retail floorspace that is of an ‘out of centre’ format in the council’s emerging Local Plan (Policy SS4).  This policy was approved by Cabinet in March this year for development management purposes. Through the emerging Local Plan policy, the council is pro-actively planning and controlling the future of this site and is making clear provision at an exiting shopping destination for the types of store formats which cannot be accommodated in a town centre. 

 

Newnham Court is therefore regarded as a preferable out of town location to the application site. This does not alter the position that the application proposal with its high proportion of fashion goods floorspace should be located on a town centre site and that there are sequentially preferable sites within and at the edge of the town centre which are capable of accommodating it.

 

Impact Test

 

5.3.27         The impact test in the National Planning Policy Framework is in 2 parts:

·      Impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre

·      Impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability.

 

 

The applicants have undertaken a retail impact assessment of their proposal. It is standard practice in such assessments to use a methodology to quantify the impact of a proposal on town centre trade. The assessment calculates how much of the expenditure spent in town centre shops will be diverted to the new store. This amount of expenditure that would be lost from town centre shops is presented as a proportion (percentage) of the total amount of expenditure in town centre shops. This is the percentage impact on the town centre of the new store.

 

5.3.28         The applicants’ assessment has been reviewed by the Council’s retail consultants who identified a number of weaknesses in the methodology which had been used.

 

5.3.29 To overcome these weaknesses, the consultants undertook a re-assessment of the applicants’ impact assessment.  This re-assessment draws on the wider Maidstone retail capacity work the consultants are undertaking for the Council in connection with the Local Plan.

 

5.3.30 The percentage impact on town centre comparison goods trade forecast by the applicants and by the Council’s consultants (DTZ) at 2015 and 2017 are set out below:

 

	2015	2017
Applicants	1.37%	1.37%
DTZ	2.13%	2.09%

 

Based on the council’s consultants’ figures, there will be a 2.13% reduction in the value of comparison goods trade in the town centre at 2015 (based on todays prices) if the new Next store were to open compared with the value of trade at the same date without the new store.

 

5.3.31         The consultants conclude that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Maidstone Town Centre. They make the following additional observations:

 

·      Vacant shops are focused in the secondary areas of the town centre and The Mall and it is judged that these areas would be more vulnerable to the impacts of the proposed new store.

·      In the face of difficult economic conditions for retailing, even small impacts can make the difference between financial viability and closure for some retailers.

·      The new store opening on an out of centre site could influence the decisions of other retailers considering downsizing their operations

·      The applicants’ overall conclusion of that the town centre is viable and healthy is not disagreed with.

       

5.3.32         Of significance to the consideration of retail impact are the emerging retail proposals for Newnham Court.  Whilst this site does not have planning permission for comprehensive redevelopment and is therefore not a ‘commitment’ in strict terms, it has been identified in the emerging Local Plan as a strategic site for retail development for retail formats which cannot be accommodated in the town centre.  A draft policy (Policy SS4) was approved by Cabinet in March 2013 for development management purposes following public consultation on the policy in autumn 2012.  The supporting text to the draft policy states that an impact on the town centre trade of more than 3% is unlikely to be acceptable.

 

5.3.33           There is evidence that this proposal will come forward. An EIA screening opinion has been submitted. The letter of objection submitted by the developer/landowner of the Newnham Court site to this application confirms their intention to submit a planning application for their site in the early summer.  On this timescale, the development could be open in 2016. 

 

5.3.34 There is therefore the likely prospect that the application proposal, if granted consent, will come forward in addition to the development at Newnham Court.   Notwithstanding that the Next proposal would be implemented first, there is the clear expectation as supported in emerging policy that further retail development at Newnham Court will follow. This being the case, the cumulative impact of the application proposal in addition to the Newnham Court proposals is considered to be a relevant consideration. 

 

5.3.35         Assuming a maximum impact of 3% on town centre trade arising from the Newnham Court (as specified in the text to the emerging policy) the combined impact of the two proposals at 2018, when the Newnham Court proposal would have been open for a full calendar year, could be in the order of 5%

 

5.3.36 The significance that such a cumulative impact would have on the town centre requires consideration.

 

5.3.37         In overall terms the town centre has the attributes of a healthy town centre.  It benefits from a very good range of national retailers which are geographically concentrated in the main shopping core of the town centre, including The Mall.

 

5.3.38 In common with other centres, vacancy levels in the town centre increased between 2006 and 2009 as a result of the economic downturn but, more positively, rates appear to have stabilised over the past 12-18 months (2011/12). Overall, 12.3% of retail floorspace (12.6% of retail units) in the town centre is vacant (November 2012). Occupancy levels are good in the prime retail areas such as Fremlins Walk and the southern end of Week Street. The vacant units are disproportionately concentrated in The Mall and the secondary shopping areas such as High Street, Gabriels Hill and Bank Street.  These areas are potentially more vulnerable to reduced levels of town centre trade.   As confirmed by the council’s retail consultants, even a small adverse change in trading patterns can have a significant effect for those retailers operating at the margins of profitability.

 

5.3.39 Further, the high levels of national retailer representation are regarded as crucial to driving and sustaining footfall in the town centre.  In Fremlin Walk and the southern end of Week Street currently there is a critical mass and diversity of major retailers which, in turn, help to drive footfall in the town centre and thereby help to attract and thereby retain major retailers. A significant change in the trade levels in the town centre could reduce the prospect of retaining this range of national retailers. Trading conditions for town centre retailers remain challenging due to the economic climate, the strength of regional scale shopping centres such as Bluewater (which is expanding) and the rise of the internet etc.  These factors, along with  the overall trend for retailers to rationalise the number of stores they have nationally, could put the vitality and viability of the town centre at serious risk. An isolated closure of a key town centre store could prompt an incremental effect with other key retailers taking the decision to down size or relocate.

 

         The applicants identify the majority of the new store’s homeware trade would mainly be drawn from House of Fraser and Beales and to a lesser extent from the existing Next stores.   For fashion goods, trade would be drawn from Next stores, Marks & Spencer and other fashion retailers predominantly located in The Mall and Fremlins Walk.

 

         House of Fraser has an important role in as an anchor store in Fremlin Walk. The council’s retail consultants advise that in the medium term the incremental effect of Next establishing a competing out of centre attraction could force House of Fraser to re-consider its position.  Marks & Spencer is operating from split stores on Week Street.  Whilst the consultants consider there to be limited risk of the retailer closing either store in the medium term, the application proposal could accelerate their requirement for a larger more efficient store.  The consultants conclude that they could not rule out other shop closures within the retail core as a result of the new store. As set out above, the effects are amplified when considered in conjunction with the planned  Newnham Court proposals.

        

5.3.40 The threshold for the impact test in the National Planning Policy Framework is a ‘significant adverse’ impact. In difficult economic conditions there is considered to be considerable risk that the effects of the application proposal, in addition to that already planned for at Newnham Court, would have an unacceptable impact on the health of Maidstone town centre.   The scale of this impact is judged to be sufficient to qualify as a significant adverse impact on the town centre’s vitality and viability.  The impact test of the National Planning Policy Framework has not been met.  

 

         4) Development on employment land

 

5.3.41         As stated earlier, the site is designated as employment land in the Borough-wide Local Plan 2000 and would represent a form of development not in accordance with that designation. 

 

5.3.42         Members will also note from the planning history set out earlier in the report that the site is subject to an extant outline planning permission for B1 office development (MA/11/0242).

 

5.3.43         The applicants have submitted a report prepared by Sibley Pares, that considers office supply and demand in Maidstone and at eclipse Park and seeks to establish whether it would be detrimental to release part of the site for alternative employment uses.

 

5.3.44         Predictably, the report states that demand has fallen in the last three years due to the financial situation. It also states that Maidstone faces competition with Kings Hill, which has also been suffering a downturn in demand to the point where the developers are seeking to release land previously earmarked for economic development purposes to residential, and Ashford which said to have better links with High Speed One and thus London and mainland Europe.

 

5.3.45 It is also stated that there is ample supply of office space in Maidstone to meet current and future demand and that Eclipse Park, even if this site is released, would still have 60,000sq.ft (5,580m) with consent for office use. Reference is also made to extant permissions at Springfield (16,750m), Abbey Court Sandling (3146m) and Turkey Court Ashford Road (1632m) that have not been taken up as further evidence of the lack of demand.

 

5.3.46 Eclipse Park is one of Maidstone’s prime office locations. However, in common with other sites around the Borough and elsewhere demand has clearly fallen-off in recent years due to the current financial climate and the investment uncertainty that has ensued.

 

5.3.47  Paragraph 22 of the National Planning Policy Framework advises that ‘planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. 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.’

 

5.3.48 As part of the emerging local plan process, the Council is reviewing existing employment land designations as well as assessing sites that have come forward (including the application site and the wider Eclipse Park) as part of the recent call for sites to assist the SEDLAA. At this stage therefore, I do consider that it would be premature to release this site on the basis that there is no real prospect of the site being used for its allocated employment use or the permitted B1 office use.. 

 

5.3.49 I do recognise that the development would be likely to result in the provision of a net gain of 97 jobs arising from the development, when the intended closure of The Mall store is taken into account. This is clearly not an insubstantial amount and would encompass a range of opportunities, although I note from the information submitted by the applicants that a substantial proportion of the 139 permanent jobs at the proposed store (120) would be part-time amounting to 49 full time equivalent posts, with 19 full-time posts. I do not consider that this is a factor of such overriding weight as to tip the balance in favour of permitting the development.               

 

5.4    Visual Impact and Design

 

5.4.1 The site lies close to the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the boundary of which is to the north of the M20 and the North Downs Special Landscape Area (SLA), the boundary of which surrounds Eclipse Park and the Park & Ride site to its west, north and east. The North Downs escarpment is visible to the north across Eclipse Park.

 

5.4.2 The context of this site in relation to the AONB and the appropriateness of the current’s site then designation as part of the North Downs Special Landscape Area (SLA) was considered at length by the Local Plan Inspector in his report into objections to the Deposit Draft of the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan. The Inspector was asked to consider specific objections seeking to remove the SLA and Strategic Gap designations on three areas of land; an area including Heath Wood in the west, a central area of land adjoining the Stakis (now the Hilton) Hotel and an eastern area comprising land east of the A249 as far east as Horish Wood and including land at Newnham Court Farm.

 

5.4.3 The Inspector clearly concluded in respect of the western area to the west and southwest of the current application site that the most southerly part should be allocated for housing development and excluded from the SLA, this is now Shaw Close, but that Heath Wood and the open meadow area to its east which provided a setting for the woodland should not be excluded from the SLA. In respect of the eastern area, the Inspector concluded that whilst the land and buildings around Newnham Court Farm were prominent, their impact was limited to the western part of the area with the remainder providing an extensive area of open agricultural land unaffected by Newnham Court or the urban influences further west and wholly in keeping with the rest of the landscape in the SLA. He therefore concluded that this area should remain in the SLA.

 

5.4.4 Of key importance to the consideration of the current application as it includes the application site is the central area considered by the Inspector. He concluded as follows in para 3.391 of his report.

         

         ‘Turning to the central area, I agree with the objectors that its landscape character has been severely affected by the urbanising influences of the hotel, the M20 and other roads and the park and ride facility. I am concerned that the criteria for establishing SLAs should not be applied to such a small area, since not every part of the SLA will meet all of them. Nevertheless I agree that in itself the site has little scenic quality and that whilst it retains elements of open fields and tree shelter belts they are not enough in this urban context to ensure the site is representative of Kent countryside. Moreover, from the A249 to the east of the site where these features are most apparent, the car park can be seen through the trees further eroding its scenic and representative qualities.’

 

 5.4.5 The Council contended at the Local Plan Inquiry that the original justification for including the land to the south of the M20 in the SLA was that it was foreground to the Kent Downs AONB. The site was important as the undeveloped foreground in views northwards to the open countryside and the Downs.      

 

5.4.6 The Inspector considered this argument and rejected it stating in paragraph 3.392;

          

         ‘I agree that there are views of the Downs particularly from the western end where Bearsted Road rises above the site. However, the hotel is highly prominent in all these views both along the road frontage and into the site in depth. I did not find that the landscaping mitigates the urbanising impact of its extensive roof, since in many places the road is higher than the site and looks down onto the roof.

 

         3.393 For all these reasons I have concluded that this part of the objection site which is also the site of objections DED0122 and DED0123 dealt with in Chapter 5, should be deleted from the SLA. This area includes the site which is subject of objections DENV005 in paragraph 3.372 (the area to the east of Old Sittingbourne Road and west of the Hilton Hotel). To be consistent the site of the Stakis Hotel should also be excluded.’

 

5.4.7 The Inspector also considered a specific objection seeking the allocation of the land adjacent to the Stakis (Hilton) Hotel as an employment site. He set out his views on the site’s potential allocation in Chapter 5 of his report at paragraphs 5.30 and following;

 

         ‘5.30 In Chapter 3 I recommend that the site should be deleted from both the Strategic Gap (DENV0490) and the North Downs SLA (DENV0491). Against this background and with my conclusions in need and the agreement at the inquiry on other matters, the only outstanding issue to my mind is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

 

         Conclusions

 

         5.31 I found on my visits that the character and appearance of the area around the site is very strongly influenced by the urban nature of the Stakis Hotel the M20 and other major roads, the park and ride facility and, to a lesser extent, the buildings at Newnham Court Farm. It was this urban influence which I describe in more detail in chapter 3 which led to my recommendation to delete the objection site from the SLA. It also persuades me that, with the right safeguards on landscaping and uses, development of the type proposed would not materially harm the character and appearance of the area. I therefore conclude that this objection should be supported and I turn to consider the modifications to the Plan which are necessary as a result.’     

 

5.4.8 It is clear that the Local Plan Inspector considered that the site had been affected by existing urban intrusion arising from the hotel and the motorway and other roads to such an extent that its role as part of the SLA and in providing the setting for the Kent Downs AONB had been compromised to the point that designation should not be continued.

 

5.4.9 The visual impact of the current application should also be considered in the context of the adjacent Towergate Building located to the north. The Towergate building is approximately 16.6m in height with a centrally located roof-top plant section adding a further 3.2m to the overall height over the central section of the building. This compares to the 14m height of the proposed building. However, the Towergate building is narrower in profile than the proposed building on the application site.

 

5.4.10         When viewed standing to the west or south west of the proposed building, I do not consider that the proposed building would harm the setting of the AONB to the north due to its juxtaposition relative to the Towergate building. When viewed from the south east form Bearsted Road and the M20 link road, woodland to the north of the M20 within the AONB that currently provides a green backdrop to the site would be interrupted.

 

5.4.11         From the scarp slope of the North Downs it would be seen in the context of the taller Towergate building (which is not visually intrusive) and the other development in Eclipse Park which is set on slightly higher ground than the application site. 

 

5.4.12         It is clear that the building would be very prominent in short distance views, largely from Bearsted Road, the A249 and from within Eclipse Park itself.  The building would appear as a large uniform box. Whilst the Towergate building is taller, it is narrower in profile than the proposed building and it is better articulated and addresses both the internal areas of Eclipse Park and also the A249 Sittingbourne Road on its eastern side.

 

5.4.13 The site is a prominent site and the building will be very exposed on three sides to views. It is a large box-like structure of significant uniform height,   

 

5.4.14         The front elevation is well articulated through the use of the colonnade (the columns of which are partly pre-cast stone and partly ragstone), the stone cladding and the significant set-back of the glazed entrance to provide the visual interest and vitality.

 

5.4.15         The east and west elevations are not well articulated although they have a glazed panel close to the front elevation. The predominant feature of these elevations is the extent of the proposed brickwork. Whilst the proposed system could result in a ‘crisp’ form to the building it is the extent and apparent visual mass of the brickwork that will be the predominant feature emphasising the height and bulk of the building.

 

5.4.16         The rear (north) elevation will also be open to view particularly when travelling towards Maidstone from the M20 junction and also from within Eclipse Park. The fact that the building is a stand-alone building with these open views of the three less well articulated elevations compounds the visual impact and mass of the development.

 

5.4.17 Whilst the service yard for the development is also smaller than originally submitted it is still located in a prominent position at the rear of the building further detracting from the appearance of the rear elevation of the building. The pre-grown Hedera (Ivy) screen wall will, it is acknowledged serve to assist in screening the service area from the car park.

 

5.4.18         The re-siting of the building westwards has resulted in some of the parking being moved closer to the A249 on the east side of the site. Due to the rise in land levels and the carriage-way towards the motorway junction some of the visual impact of the parking will therefore be reduced. Tree planting and shrub beds also have been introduced to the parking area to seek to break it up visually.

 

5.4.19         On a positive note, the applicants have demonstrated that the building is capable of achieving a BREEAM very good rating in terms of the efficiency and sustainability of its construction.

 

5.4.20         I consider that, the building is of a poor design that would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the area through its prominent siting, coupled with its overall height and mass and largely unrelieved external elevations. The harm caused is sufficient to warrant and sustain refusal on these grounds.

 

5.5    Highways

 

5.5.1 A full Transport Assessment and addendum were submitted as part of the application documentation together with a draft Travel Plan. The documentation has been assessed by both the Highways Agency (in terms of the potential impact of the development on the adjacent M20 motorway, part of the Strategic Route Network that the Agency is tasked with managing) and Kent Highway Services, as the local Highway Authority.

 

5.5.2 Members will have noted the formal responses to consultation of the Highways Agency and Kent Highway Services set out earlier in the report in sections 3.2 and 3.3 respectively.

 

5.5.3 The Transport Assessment concludes that the proposed development would generate fewer trips in the weekday morning and evening peak hours compared to the consented office use. There would however, be no residual offset at weekends, although these trips would occur at times when the local highway network would be less heavily trafficked relative to weekdays.

 

5.5.4 Junction capacity assessments have been carried out on the basis of fully classified turning count survey data. This data has been extrapolated to the horizon year of 2022 using standard modelling software (TEMPROv.6.2) and consideration has been given to the committed developments at Eclipse Park, the KIMS Hospital at Newnham Park and the Maidstone Studios, in line with the previous Plot 4 and Hotel planning applications. The junction capacity assessments provide a direct comparison between the permitted but unimplemented Plot 4 office development and the proposed retail development.

 

5.5.5 The Transport Assessment demonstrates that all junctions other than the Chiltern Hundreds Roundabout would experience a reduction in weekday peak traffic relative to the permitted office development. There would be an increase in Saturday peak hour traffic as the offices would not be operational at this time. However, the local junctions are predicted to operate with no significant increase in average delay in all scenarios with the modifications already committed for Plot 4 in place and the introduction of a left filter arrow on the side road arm of the new Bearsted Road / Eclipse Park signal junction.

 

5.5.6 The Highways Agency has raised no objections to the development in terms of the traffic generation. They consider that the Transport Assessment has been prepared in accordance with best practice, and that it presents a robust forecast of trips generated on the Strategic Route Network. They conclude their comments by stating:

 

                   ‘The applicant has set out that the total trip attraction from the retail development as a whole remains unlikely to exceed that generated by the permitted office development.           Our checks on the trip generation used for the proposal suggest that this is an acceptable analysis. We have undertaken a review of the modelling work used to   support the applicant’s conclusions and have found the work to be generally   satisfactory, with particular respect to the M20 J7.

 

         With the Plot 4 mitigation proposals in place, we are satisfied that the revised proposals will not have a material effect on the operation of the SRN.’

 

5.5.7 Similarly, Kent Highway Services have raised no objections to the development subject to the suggest conditions, informatives and obligations set out in paragraph 3.3.2 earlier in the report.

 

5.5.8 The concerns of objectors including the residents of Shaw Close are noted but given the views of both Kent County Council and the Highways Agency on trip generation and the acceptable impact on the local and strategic road network, it is not considered that objections could be raised and sustained on highway grounds to the development.

 

5.6    Landscaping and Ecology

 

5.6.1 A landscape masterplan has been prepared for the development. This has been revised in consultation with Council officers following consideration of a number of issues raised relating to the original proposals and as result of the siting of the building being changed.

 

5.6.2 The proposed scheme seeks to provide a balance between the use of appropriate native/near native species and a desire on the part of the applicant to allow some colour/variety in the landscaping.    

 

5.6.3 The existing hedgerow framework to the eastern and southern site boundaries will be retained and reinforced by new planting. The under-storey to this would be planted with indigenous under-storey hedgerow species including foxglove, cowslip, celandine, wood anemone and greater stitchwort. A hornbeam hedge is shown to be planted to the western boundary along the Eclipse Park access road. 

 

5.6.4 Within the car park, Cut Leaved Alder Trees are now proposed (previously London Plane) and a fastigiate variety of Oak would be planted on the inside of the boundary hedge to the east and south sides of the site. A stand of birch trees is also shown to be planted on the west side of the building adjacent to the Eclipse Park access road to seek to soften the western flank elevation of the building. The newly created grass verge adjacent to the roundabout outside the site would be planted with drifts of Narcissus and Snowdrops. 

 

5.6.5 The applicants have provide details showing how the car park trees will be planted in sufficient space and depth to ensure their long-term health and have also indicated that they will be protected by stainless steel bollards from damage by vehicles.

 

5.6.6 I consider that the revised landscaping scheme has addressed previous concerns and that it would subject to a detailed management regime that could be secured by condition provide an appropriate setting for the development. No objections are raised to the development in terms of landscaping.  

 

5.6.7 The site has been scarified and levelled and now has little, if any, grass cover and as such its potential has been reduced. This is regrettable. However, hedging has been maintained to the east and part of the southern site boundaries except where removed to allow for the highway improvement works to the Eclipse Park access road thus maintaining some connectivity with the surrounding area.

 

5.6.8 The recent changes to the landscaping scheme outlined above with the introduction of more appropriate native and near-native species together with the reinstatement of hedgerows and understorey planting would provide a measure of enhancement to the current situation and continue to provide suitable habitat for reptiles on the site.

 

5.6.9 No objections are raised to the proposals in terms of the impact on ecology.      

 

5.7    Residential Amenity

 

5.7.1 The site boundary is located in excess of 100m from the nearest dwellings in Emsworth Grove on the Vinters Park estate which lies to the south of Bearsted Road. The proposed store building is set some 80m north of the southern site boundary. Given this separation, the existence of a dual-carriageway road, a substantial and planted highway verge on the Vinters Park side of Bearsted Road, I do not consider that the development would result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the occupiers of these properties.

 

5.7.2 Other dwellings to the south-west/west of the site are located in Weyhill Close, Vinters Park at more than 160m from the site boundary. Two dwellings ‘Melton’ and ‘Tall Trees’ are located on the south side of Bearsted Road in excess of 250m west of the site boundary. Again, I do not consider that the development would result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the occupiers of these properties.

 

5.7.3 Objections have also been received from the occupiers of properties in Shaw Close. The closest property in Shaw Close to the site is approximately 320m to the west of the site boundary. Between the site and Shaw Close lies the Hilton Hotel and existing offices/car parking at the western end of Eclipse Park. Whilst Shaw Close occupies higher ground than the application site, the distances involved and the intervening buildings are such that no direct impact is likely to arise on the occupiers.

 

5.7.4 I consider that the development will not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on residential amenity.

 

5.8    Other Matters

 

5.8.1   Neither the Environment Agency or the Council’s Environmental Health section have raised objections to the site in terms of contamination but consider that an appropriate ‘watching brief’ condition be imposed on any permission in the event that contamination is discovered during construction.

 

5.8.2 The proposed drainage regime including the proposed method for surface water disposal is also considered acceptable. The Environment Agency has raised no objections to the proposals on flood risk grounds.  

 

5.8.3           In terms of potential s106 Heads of Terms, the applicants have offered £50,000 to enable improvements within the Town Centre to be undertaken. Whilst such a sum could be used to provide public realm or other improvements such as better signage in the Town Centre and would accord with the objectives of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan no specific measures have been highlighted.

 

5.8.4 There has also been some discussion with the applicants on possible conditions and the applicants have indicated that they would be willing to accept a condition restricting the total retail sales area devoted to the sale of fashion goods to 1479m (some 44.5% of the retail sales area) with home wares at 1841m (55.5%). The originally submitted scheme had a marginally higher percentage of the floorspace given over to fashion goods (45.6%) and accordingly lower percentage devoted to home wares (54.3%).

 

6.      CONCLUSION

 

6.1   There are clear benefits to directing new retail development to town centres. Focusing development into town centres better facilitates linked trips; for each trip into the town centre shoppers have the opportunity to visit a range of different stores or facilities to meet their shopping or other needs, providing for improved customer choice and competition.  Secondly, town centres generally are better served by a range of transport modes compared with out of centre locations. There is a clear ‘town centre first’ principle which underpins the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

6.2    It is also the case that the legitimate business needs of retailers should be taken into account when considering compliance with the sequential test.  The extant practice guidance on needs, impact and the sequential approach states “in every case it will be necessary to strike an appropriate balance between the requirements of the commercial sector and the requirements of national policy based on local circumstances” (paragraph 6.33 of the guidance).

 

6.3    Next is intending to deliver 20 or so of these ‘full range’ Next/Next at Home stores across the country. It is Next’s position that these stores are a new and unique format in the company’s portfolio of stores.  Notwithstanding the ‘town centre first’ approach espoused in national planning policy, none of the sites being progressed by Next are town centre sites. The applicant has a clear commercial desire to deliver both fashion and homeware goods within a single building as one of a number of ‘flagship’ stores across the country. There is an undoubted attraction for Next customers to have access to the full range of goods in a single store. Next has identified Maidstone as a location for growth in its homeware ranges. The applicants also state that having a large store in Maidstone town centre will not attract the out of town shopping trade from Gillingham/Sittingbourne and elsewhere in Kent that the application site would achieve. In essence the applicants’ argument is that these shoppers from further afield would be attracted to visit a Next store on the application site, with its convenient access from Junction 7 of M20, but would not be motivated to visit the same store if it were located in the town centre.

          

6.4      It is also clear that there would be a net increase of some 97 jobs if the development were allowed to proceed once the impact of the closure of The Mall store has been taken into  account. Although, it is noted that the majority of these would be part-time jobs. 

 

6.5    There are three sites which are sequentially preferable to the application site and which it is considered could potentially accommodate a Next/Next Home store: 

1.  Maidstone East/Royal Mail Sorting office

2. Former Somerfield Store, King Street with/without the adjacent bowling alley

3. The former T J Hughes Unit, The Mall

 

6.6    Weighing in the balance with the commercial considerations is the existence of these three sequentially preferable sites. The above three town centre/edge of centre sites are all considered inherently appropriate for retail development and capable of accommodating the proposed development allowing for due flexibility from the retailer. In contrast with the application proposal, the occupation of any of these sites would positively support the commercial health of Maidstone town centre, bringing underused or vacant sites into use. Unlike the application proposal, which is a stand alone retail unit, there would be much greater opportunities for linked trips if one of these sites was taken up for the Next/Next Home proposal.  Further, the application proposal as presented has a significant proportion of its retail floorspace devoted to fashion goods (44.5%) which gives further weight to the appropriateness of a town centre site.  Such goods would normally be sold in a town centre.

 

6.7    It is considered that the applicants have not satisfactorily demonstrated sufficient flexibility in coming to the conclusion that there are no more sequentially preferable sites for their proposal.  Consequently it is considered that the sequential test set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and in Policy R2 of the adopted Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan has not been met. Further, the application proposal would establish a brand new out of town shopping destination.  If there were no sequentially preferable sites (which it is considered there are) it would be preferable for the development to be directed to an established out of town retail location.  South Aylesford Retail Park for example has existing vacant units available. 

 

6.8    Of significance to the consideration of retail impact are the emerging retail proposals for Newnham Court.  Whilst this site does not have planning permission for comprehensive redevelopment and is therefore not a ‘commitment’ in strict terms, it has been identified in the emerging Local Plan as a strategic site for retail development for retail formats which cannot be accommodated in the town centre.  A draft policy (Policy SS4) was approved by Cabinet in March 2013 for development management purposes following public consultation on the policy in autumn 2012.  The supporting text to the draft policy states that an impact on the town centre trade of more than 3% is unlikely to be acceptable.

 

6.9    The developer/landowner of the Newnham Court site has confirmed their intention to submit a planning application for the site in the early summer. On this timescale, the development could be open in 2016. 

 

6.10  There is therefore the likely prospect that the application proposal, if granted consent, will come forward in addition to the development at Newnham Court.   Notwithstanding that the Next proposal would be implemented first, there is the clear expectation as supported in emerging policy that further retail development at Newnham Court will follow. This being the case, the cumulative impact of the application proposal in addition to the Newnham Court proposals is considered to be a relevant consideration. 

 

6.11  Assuming a maximum impact of 3% on town centre trade arising from the Newnham Court (as specified in the text to the emerging policy) the combined impact of the two proposals at 2018, when the Newnham Court proposal would have been open for a full calendar year, could be in the order of 5%

 

6.12  The significance that such a cumulative impact would have on the town centre requires consideration.

 

6.13  In overall terms the town centre has the attributes of a healthy town centre.  It benefits from a very good range of national retailers which are geographically concentrated in the main shopping core of the town centre, including The Mall.

 

6.14  In common with other centres, vacancy levels in the town centre increased between 2006 and 2009 as a result of the economic downturn but, more positively, rates appear to have stabilised over the past 12-18 months (2011/12). Overall, 12.3% of retail floorspace (12.6% of retail units) in the town centre is vacant (November 2012). Occupancy levels are good in the prime retail areas such as Fremlins Walk and the southern end of Week Street. The vacant units are disproportionately concentrated in The Mall and the secondary shopping areas such as High Street, Gabriels Hill and Bank Street.  These areas are potentially more vulnerable to reduced levels of town centre trade.   As confirmed by the council’s retail consultants, even a small adverse change in trading patterns can have a significant effect for those retailers operating at the margins of profitability.  

 

6.15  Further, the high levels of national retailer representation are regarded as crucial to driving and sustaining footfall in the town centre.  In Fremlin Walk and the southern end of Week Street currently there is a critical mass and diversity of major retailers which, in turn, help to drive footfall in the town centre and thereby help to attract and thereby retain major retailers. A significant change in the trade levels in the town centre could reduce the prospect of retaining this range of national retailers. Trading conditions for town centre retailers remain challenging due to the economic climate, the strength of regional scale shopping centres such as Bluewater (which is expanding) and the rise of the internet etc.  These factors, along with  the overall trend for retailers to rationalise the number of stores they have nationally, could put the vitality and viability of the town centre at serious risk. An isolated closure of a key town centre store could prompt an incremental effect with other key retailers taking the decision to down size or relocate.

 

The applicants identify the majority of the new store’s homeware trade would mainly be drawn from House of Fraser and Beales and to a lesser extent from the existing Next stores.   For fashion goods, trade would be drawn from Next stores, Marks & Spencer and other fashion retailers predominantly located in The Mall and Fremlins Walk.

 

         House of Fraser has an important role in as an anchor store in Fremlin Walk. The council’s retail consultants advise that in the medium term the incremental effect of Next establishing a competing out of centre attraction could force House of Fraser to re-consider its position.  Marks & Spencer is operating from split stores on Week Street.  Whilst the consultants consider there to be limited risk of the retailer closing either store in the medium term, the application proposal could accelerate their requirement for a larger more efficient store.  The consultants conclude that they could not rule out other shop closures within the retail core as a result of the new store. As set out above, the effects are amplified when considered in conjunction with the planned Newnham Court proposals.

 

6.16  The threshold for the impact test in the National Planning Policy Framework is a ‘significant adverse’ impact. In difficult economic conditions there is considered to be considerable risk that the effects of the application proposal, in addition to that already planned for at Newnham Court, would have an unacceptable impact on the health of Maidstone town centre.   The scale of this impact is judged to be sufficient to qualify as a significant adverse impact on the town centre’s vitality and viability.  The impact test of the National Planning Policy Framework has not been met.   

 

6.17  I also consider that Eclipse Park remains as one of the best locations for office based employment development in the Borough. In accordance with the advice at paragraph 22 of the National Planning Policy Framework and as part of the emerging local plan process, the Council is reviewing existing employment land designations as well as assessing sites that have come forward (including the application site and the wider Eclipse Park) as part of the recent call for sites to assist the Strategic Economic Development Land Availability Assessment. At this stage therefore, I do consider that it would be premature to release this site on the basis that there is no real prospect of the site being used for its allocated employment use or the permitted B1 office use.

 

6.18  It is also considered that the building despite the re-siting that sought to reduce its visual impact is of a poor design that would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the area, through its prominent siting together with its overall height, mass and largely unrelieved external elevations. The harm caused is sufficient to warrant and sustain refusal on these grounds.

 

6.19  There are benefits that would arise from the development as proposed that need to be weighed against the factors set out above.

 

6.20  There would be a net increase in jobs (in the region of 97), although as noted earlier in the report many of these would be part-time although permanent.

 

6.21  The development also represents a significant inward investment on behalf of the applicant which would be to the benefit of raising Maidstone’s profile and the local economy. Next reports that the new store will have turnover of some £12.9million in 2015. Based on Next’s own retail impact assessment, some 58% (£7.53million) of this turnover will be diverted from existing stores outside the borough, thereby drawing additional trade into the borough.

 

6.22  I do not consider however that these benefits are of such overriding weight as to consider setting aside the scheme’s failure to meet the sequential and impact tests as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. The scheme would also result in the loss of a potential office development site on the one of the most ideally located employment sites in the Borough, which would be premature pending a review of such sites currently being undertaken. In addition, the poor design of scheme would result in development harmful to the character and visual amenities of the area. The following recommendation is therefore appropriate. 

 

7.           RECOMMENDATION

 

REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the following reasons:      

 

1.           In the opinion of the local planning authority, the applicants have not satisfactorily demonstrated sufficient flexibility in coming to the conclusion that there are no more sequentially preferable sites for the proposed development or better located out of centre sites. It is therefore considered that the sequential test as set out at paragraph 25 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policy R2 of the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan 2000 has not been met. To permit the development would therefore be contrary to the advice at paragraph 27 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policy R2 of the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan 2000.

2.           The proposed development in cumulation with the proposed retail development at Newnham Court would in the opinion of the local planning authority, have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Maidstone Town Centre. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would fail the impact test as set out at paragraph 26 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. To permit the development would therefore be contrary to the advice at paragraph 27 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policy R3 of the Maidstone Borough-wide Local Plan 2000.

3.           The proposed building is considered to be of poor design. The prominent and exposed siting and overall height and mass of the building, together with the largely unrelieved north, east and west elevations, would introduce a visually intrusive and discordant feature that would be harmful to the character and visual amenity of the area and which would not be successfully integrated into the existing natural and built environment of the area. To permit the development therefore would be contrary to the advice in paragraphs 58, 61 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

4.           Granting permission for a Class A1 retail unit on this site would result in the loss of a well located, sustainable and designated employment site with an extant permission for Grade A Class B1 office development. In the opinion of the local planning authority to permit the development in advance of the completion of a review of such sites as required by paragraph 22 of the National Planning Policy Framework would be premature.

Note to applicant

In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF, Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. MBC works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by:

Offering a pre-application advice and duty desk service.

Where possible, suggesting solutions to secure a successful outcome.

As appropriate, updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application.

In this instance:

The application was considered to be fundamentally contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, and there were not considered to be any solutions to resolve this conflict.

Minor changes to the proposals were made during consideration of the application but these were not considered to address the fundamental objections relating to the Development Plan and the national Planning Policy Framework.

The applicant was given an opportunity to address the Planning Committee and promote the development.