PLANNING COMMITTEE

8th December 2015

SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR (ASSETTS AND ENVIRONMENT)

BOROUGH OF TAMWORTH

PLANNING COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS

8th December 2015

A Reports for Consideration 2 B Appeals Received 0 C Appeal Decisions 0 D Consultations 0 E High Court Challenges 0 F Issues Papers 0

BACKGROUND PAPERS

All other documents referred to in individual reports

SUMMARY OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION Part A Reports for consideration Application Number: 0339/2015 Development: Two storey side extension and the installation of extended mezzanine floor with

associated ancillary cafe and amendments to the existing car parking arrangements

Location: Unit 1 Homebase, Ventura Retail Park Ventura Park Road, Tamworth, B78 3HB Recommendation 1. Approval subject to the conditions outlined below and the entering

into a suitable Section 106 Agreement in accordance with the requirements outlined in this report. Powers to be delegated to officers to continue to negotiate the detailed terms of the Section 106 Agreement.

2. If the Section 106 Agreement has not been signed before the expiration of any agreed extension of time then powers are delegated to Officers to refuse permission based on the unacceptability of the development without the required contributions and undertakings as outlined in this report.

............................................................................................................................................... Application Number: 0357/2015 Development: Retrospective change of use from wholesale warehouse (Class B8) to a retail

warehouse club (sui generis use) with ancillary car parking, service area and external storage area.

Location: JTF Warehouse, Ninian Way, Tame Valley Industrial Estate, Tamworth

Staffordshire Recommendation 1. Approval subject to the conditions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

.

Application Number: 0339/2015 Development: Two storey side extension and the installation of extended mezzanine

floor with associated ancillary cafe and amendments to the existing car parking arrangements

Location: Unit 1 Homebase, Ventura Retail Park Ventura Park Road, Tamworth, B78 3HB

1 Site and Surroundings 1.1 The application site is located on the Borough’s out of town retail park known as Ventura Park

located to the north of the A5 trunk road and to the south west of the town centre. The site is bound to the north by a band of trees and shrubs beyond which lies Riverdrive, to the west lies a car parking area which itself is bound to the west by Bitterscote Drive. A new vehicular egress has recently been constructed from the car park area to Riverdrive.

1.2 The existing service yard for the unit is located to the east of the building, with the existing stores of

Phase 1 of Ventura Park attached to the southern part of the building. The site occupies a prominent corner position and is one of the larger units, within this phase of Ventura Park. Ventura Park is identified within the emerging Local Plan as an out of centre retail park.

2 Proposal 2.1 The application seeks approval to extend the existing Homebase unit into an area currently

occupied by an outdoor garden display area and the installation of a mezzanine floor across the whole unit. Following the construction of the extensions and mezzanine the unit is proposed to be occupied by Next. Next currently operate two separate units within the existing out of centre retail parks in the Borough. Next are seeking to accommodate their entire product range in one new concept ‘Next Home and Garden Store’, the unit also includes the provision of an ancillary café.

2.2 Detailed plans have been submitted with the application which indicates a contemporary style

extension to the existing building, which includes updating the appearance of the existing unit to provide a mainly glazed building, with framed windows.

2.3 The following documents have been submitted in support of the application (all are available for

inspection on the council’s website at www.tamworth.gov.uk):

Planning and Retail Statement (including a response to the retail review) Design and Access Statement Transport Statement Flood Risk Assessment

2.4 Whist the proposal is considered to be development falling within the thresholds contained within

Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations as the site area exceed 0.5 ha, the extension itself does not exceed 0.5 ha. As such and taking into account the environmental effects of the extension on the development as a whole an EIA screening opinion is not required.

3 Key Issues 3.1 The key issue which underpins the assessment of this application is the principle of development,

most importantly whether there is a sequentially preferable suitable and available site for the proposal and whether the proposal would have an impact on the town centre and if so to what degree.

3.2 In addition, the siting and design of the proposed building, highway safety, and flood risk are also

important considerations in determining the acceptability of the proposed development.

4 Conclusion 4.1 This recommendation is one which is finely balanced. However, the requirements for Local Planning

Authorities to act in the real world taking in to account relevant material considerations in addition to planning policy and guidance in taking decisions on planning application has led to this recommendation for approval.

4.2 Whilst the preferred location for any new retail floor space is the town centre, in this instance and as

a result of a detailed assessment of the suitability and availability of sites within the town centre there are not considered to be any available suitable sequentially preferable sites that could accommodate the proposal at this point in time which justifies the limited time period for the implementation of the proposal. Following careful consideration the impacts associated with the proposal on the town centre in terms of impacts on retail trading, the vitality and viability of the town centre and on the delivery of the Gungate site the proposal is not considered to have a demonstrable significant adverse impact on these matters.

4.3 The physical alterations to the existing building and the updating of its current tired appearance with

a modern and crisply designed new building would improve the appearance of this part of Ventura Park and would have a positive impact on the retail park and enhance its built character. This coupled with the additional jobs created, and contributions towards improving the attractiveness of the links from the site to the town centre all weigh in favour of the proposal.

4.4 In addition, the proposal is not considered to impact detrimentally on highway safety or increase

flood risk. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and its practice guidance, Policies TRA3 and ENV19 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011, Policies EC1, EC2, EC5, SU1 and IM1 of the emerging Tamworth Local Plan 2011-2031, and the relevant material considerations identified within this report.

Recommendation Approve subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement providing a financial contribution towards the linkages project

0339/2015

This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright.

[I

I

II

I

I

[

[

\

[ I

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

\

R

Y

III

I

I

II

II

I

III

I

II

I

I

RIVERDRIVE HIG

H B

RO

OM

E C

OU

RT

22 to

37

PremierTravel

Inn

RIVERDRIVE

Drain

El Sub Sta

HIG

H B

RO

OM

E C

OU

RT

10

17

11

14

18

19

2021

5 Relevant History 5.1 0557/2008: Redevelopment of Gungate Precinct and adjacent land and buildings to provide 20,660

sq.m. of A1 retail floorspace with provision for up to 732 car parking spaces. Approved 02/07/10. 5.2 0178/2013: Application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission in

order to extend the time limit for implementation relating to the Redevelopment of Gungate Precinct and adjacent land and buildings to provide 20,660 square metres of A1 (retail) floorspace with provision for up to 732 car parking spaces. Approved 29/11/13.

5.3 0040/2001: Extension to Matalan Store. Approved 05/03/15. This planning permission granted an

extension to the south of the existing Matalan store within Ventura Park. The planning permission granted approval for an extension comprising 1,423 sq.m. of additional floorspace for the building. This planning permission was confirmed by the Council as having commenced in 2006.

5.4 0242/2012: Insertion of mezzanine floor at the existing Homebase unit. Approved 16/10/15. This

permission granted a mezzanine of 1,748 sq.m. and included a restriction on the total retail floor space for the unit of 4,707 sq.m. In order for the proposal to be considered acceptable in retail terms the owners of Ventura Park entered in to a legal agreement to secure that only one of this permission (0242/2012) or the historic Matalan permission (0040/2001) would be implemented. The applicant’s agent (Indigo) have submitted an application for a certificate of lawful development to confirm that this permission has been implemented (0442/2015), whilst this application is yet to be determined if this permission has been implemented then the Matalan permission (0040/2015) can not be implemented in accordance with the terms of the legal agreement. If it is considered that the permission has not been implemented the applicant’s agent has provided an undertaking to enter in to a similar agreement.

6 Consultation Responses 6.1 Tamworth Borough Council – Development Plans

The proposal is not acceptable in principle, as it is not consistent with the town centre first approach in Emerging Policy SS1 and does not satisfy criteria a) or c) for out of centre development in Emerging Policy EC1.

The proposal does not pass the town centre sequential test. The evidence submitted does not provide compelling reasons to discount the Gungate site, which is available and suitable to the operators needs.

The impact assessment relies on assumptions that the Council argued against in the Local Plan examination. Following that debate there are no proposals to modify the Policy EC1 and weight should be given to the Council’s retail evidence. On detailed consideration of the evidence prepared by Indigo, the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on planned investment in the Town Centre at the Gungate site prejudicial to the strategy of the Local Plan. Furthermore, the assessment cannot be relied upon to conclude that the proposal would not otherwise have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre and it appears likely that impact would be significant.

The applicant has provided no evidence to support assertions that the proposal would bring wider economic benefits. The detriment to the vitality and viability of the town centre is therefore also unacceptable under Emerging Policy EC2.

6.2 England & Lyle (E&L) – The Council’s Retail Consultants

E&L have carried out an independent review of the retail implications of the proposals. The retail evidence base for the Local Plan is robust and remains valid. The capacity for new retail floorspace does not have to be demonstrated in support of the planning application, as need is no longer a policy test. However if need was considered, there is no capacity for further comparison goods floorspace in Tamworth until after 2021. In the short term, the available capacity will be met by the commitment for major retail development in the Gungate scheme.

The emerging Local Plan is at a very advanced stage and its policies should be afforded significant weight in the determination of the current application. The retail policies in the Plan have not been

modified except to acknowledge that the Gungate redevelopment scheme is proposed for completion prior to 2021.

In applying the sequential test, and following the information provided by Henry Boot Developments Limited (HBDL), E&L are of the opinion that the Gungate site should be judged to be both suitable and available to meet the requirements of Next and so the application fails the sequential test.

The development of a Next Home and Garden store would compete with existing shops in the town centre selling the same range of goods and, taking account of cumulative impact with commitments, there would be an adverse trading impact on these shops. However, in the light of the reasonably healthy level of vitality and viability of Tamworth town centre, it is accepted that the predicted cumulative trade diversion of 4.5% does not represent a ‘significant adverse impact’ in NPPF terms. E&L consider that it would be difficult to support a reason for refusal of the application on the grounds of adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre.

However, Next Home and Garden, also selling clothes and fashion goods, would be an attractive and appropriate major anchor tenant for the Gungate scheme. Their view is that there is a serious risk that allowing a large Next store at Ventura Park could prejudice the delivery of the Gungate redevelopment at a time when HBDL are actively planning to implement the scheme. The proposal could affect retailer confidence in locating in Gungate and reduce the ability of the scheme to attract national retailers which are lacking in the town centre at present. Such an outcome would be contrary to the Local Plan strategy to regenerate the town centre.

The interest of Next in improving its retail presence in Tamworth is welcome. It shows confidence in Tamworth as a retail destination. However, there is a risk that allowing a store of the size and type proposed for Next at Ventura Retail Park would not have an overall benefit for the town. The town centre has failed to compete with the retail parks and its role has declined compared to the retail parks. It would be most unfortunate if the development of a larger Next store in Ventura Retail Park resulted in a further weakening of the role of the town centre. It is noted however, that if Homebase do close their store it is likely to be re-occupied by another retailer seeking a retail park location. The store could be re-used for comparison goods retail without planning consent.

6.3 Staffordshire County Council – The Highway Authority

Following the initial application there were some concerns about the impact of the proposed extension on the capacity of the car park. To this end and to support the Transport Statement a survey of the car park was undertaken on Friday the 2nd and Saturday the 3rd October 2015, which demonstrates that the capacity of the existing car park can accommodate the additional predicted parking demand as a result of the proposed extension and mezzanine.

Having considered the submitted information on parking, trip generation and the recently opened egress in the vicinity of the site the Highway Authority have no objections to the proposal subject to the submission and approval of a Construction Vehicle management Plan and a Car Parking Management Plan.

6.4 Staffordshire County Council – The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA)

Following initial concerns regarding the impact of the development on an existing culvert, additional information has been submitted which details two options to overcome these concerns.

The options involve either a reduction in loading on the existing culvert or a diversion of the existing pipe, which are considered to be acceptable to the LLFA subject to a condition requiring the approval of the final scheme.

6.5 The Environment Agency

Having reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment and associated plans, note that the site falls within Flood Zone 3 but is located within an area benefitting from defences and therefore the Environment Agency have no concerns regarding the proposed development.

6.6 Tamworth Borough Council - Tourism and Town Centre Development Officer

Considers that this looks like a very exciting development and would continue to raise the profile and quality of the retail offer in Tamworth. The retail parks support massive employment and attract the greatest number of visitors to the area ensuring prosperity and a buoyant local economy.

Changes to the car park can only be viewed as an improvement to help with traffic movement and the addition of a café increases the eating/drinking offer, demand is high across the parks and there is scope to increase further. The Town Centre Development Officer is keen to support continued development across the sites, keeping the offer fresh, renewed and invested in.

6.7 Tamworth Borough Council – Environmental Protection

No objections. 6.8 Joint Waste Services

No objections to the scheme but note that it is a legal requirement that commercial waste is securely contained in suitable and sufficient containers, cannot be vandalised, kicked over or interfered with and transferred to a suitable licensed person for transport and disposal. Provision must also be made to remove a stream of recycling material from their waste.

6.9 Staffordshire Fire & Rescue

No comments, as any specific issues in relation to the proposed works will be dealt with as part of the Building Regulations process.

6.10 Staffordshire Police

Generally no objections to the proposals but note that it is important that the proposals include high levels of physical security.

7 Additional Representations 7.1 Three additional representations have been received from planning agents acting on behalf of the

landowners of sites within the town centre, and the owner of the Gungate site. 7.2 DPP on behalf of Peer Real Estate Limited (owners of Middle Entry) have objected to the

application for the following reasons:

The emerging plan makes a town centre first approach clear, in line with the NPPF. Furthermore, the suggested Main Modification to Policy EC2 makes it clear that the Gungate redevelopment scheme is identified by the Council as a future location for additional comparison retail goods within Tamworth Borough prior to 2021. The alteration to the policy also indicates that the Council wishes to see more comparison retail floorspace incorporated within Tamworth town centre. The proposed provision of additional comparison retail floorspace at Unit 1 on Ventura Retail Park would be in direct conflict with the emerging planning policy and could potentially compromise town centre redevelopment scheme from coming forward.

The proposal in question is out of centre. The NPPF states that the sequential test should

be applied to proposals for out of centre development or proposals not in accordance with the development plan and that applicants should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale. This proposal is both out of centre and not in accordance with the emerging development plan.

The applicant’s sequential assessment considered the suitability of the remaining four

identified sites within Tamworth town centre for the proposed development. Of these we consider that the Gungate Precinct was dismissed too readily and that it should be considered further. The applicant has not provided sufficient information as to why the sites, in particular Gungate, have been dismissed. As a result, the proposal currently fails the sequential test set out in paragraph 24 of the NPPF and therefore should be refused.

The NPPF seeks to promote sustainable travel. The Transport Statement accompanying the application indicates that there are four bus services which serve the nearest bus stops to the application site. Of the four services identified, the Stagecoach 766 operates what is described within the Transport Statement as an ‘infrequent services’. As this route is not frequent, it cannot be said that these services make a contribution towards influencing members of the public to use sustainable modes of transport.

Detailed information on net jobs increase has not been included within the application and

therefore cannot be deemed a benefit.

7.3 White Young Green acting on behalf of Henry Boot Developments (owners of the Gungate Site) has objected to the application for the following reasons:

The emerging Tamworth Local Plan clearly identifies the Council’s strategy to improve the

retail offer and performance of Tamworth town centre, which currently faces substantial competition from out-of-centre retail destinations. Emerging Policy EC1 of the Local Plan sets out a ‘town centre first approach’ and seeks to direct all available capacity for retail floorspace to Tamworth town centre in order to deliver the spatial objectives of regenerating and focusing investment within the town. The policy identifies that impact assessments supporting out of centre proposals should specifically consider the impact on the Gungate redevelopment. Emerging Policy EC2 reiterates that Tamworth town centre will be promoted as Tamworth’s preferred location for the development of town centre uses. The policy advises that development that will have a negative impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre and its function will not be supported unless it is demonstrated that the wider economic benefits will outweigh the detriment to the town centre.

Henry Boot is committed to delivering the Gungate redevelopment scheme at the earliest

opportunity, which will bring substantial benefits to the town centre by improving the town centre’s retail offer, thus acting as a catalyst for the regeneration of the town centre as a whole. The desire to deliver the Gungate scheme at the earliest opportunity is evidenced by the fact that the site already has outline planning permission for the delivery of 20,660 sq.m. A1 retail floorspace, has been cleared in preparation for development to commence and a new marketing campaign will be launched shortly to attract operators to the scheme.

We are of the view that the application proposal at Unit 1 Ventura Retail Park has the

capacity to prejudice the delivery of the Gungate scheme. As set out in the emerging Local Plan, Tamworth town centre already faces strong competition from out-of-centre retail developments, such as Ventura Retail Park. In addition, there is an overlap between the type of retailer which will occupy the application site if approved and that which Henry Boot is seeking to attract to the Gungate scheme. Accordingly, we consider that the approval of the application proposal will likely have a significant adverse impact on the committed town centre investment at Gungate, by impacting on the ability to attract and secure new tenants for the scheme.

In addition, we have concerns in relation to the methodology which has been applied by

Indigo in assessing the trade diversion impact on the vitality and viability of Tamworth town centre and do not consider that the application should be determined until Indigo have re-visited their trade diversion assessment.

In accordance with the above, we are of the view that the application proposal does not

accord with the emerging local plan, which should carry substantial weight given the stage the plan has reached in its examination, and the NPPF.

7.4 Henry Boot Developments Limited (HBDL) has also commented on the application on the basis of

comments made by E&L in relation to the suitability of the Gungate site to accommodate the proposed development and the delivery timescale for the site:

The current Gungate precinct benefits from consent for 20,600 sq.m. of A1 retail floorspace

and 732 car parking spaces. It is clear that the site could accommodate the level of floorspace proposed as part of this application. HBDL are looking to develop Gungate via a phased approach in order to expedite the implementation of the scheme and provide flexibility in terms of delivery. HBD advise that they would be able to provide a retail unit of

the size required that could be brought forward in the short term. HBDL are in the process of launching an occupier marketing campaign with a view to attracting tenants to the scheme.

The site is cleared and has previously been remediated making it oven-ready for

development. If HBDL are able to achieve and Agreement to Lease from an anchor tenant (such as next) they consider that a feasible time line from point of an Agreement for Lease, with an appropriate anchor tenant, until practical build completion would be 12 months. HBD note that this would involve submitting a new planning application, and that HBD would be able to utilise its sister construction company and do not require external funding. HBD consider that they are in a position to be able to fast-track the whole programme and deliver the scheme significantly quicker than most, and quicker than is currently achievable at Ventura Retail Park.

8 Planning Considerations

Policy and the principle of development;

8.1 Provisions of the development plan, the NPPF and the main material considerations 8.1.1 The most up to date national planning guidance which relates specifically to new retail

developments (a main town centre use) are contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and its practice guidance (NPPF). The existing Local Plan Polices relating to new retail developments were not saved as at the time of applying for the saving direction in 2008 as more recent and up to date polices had replaced them.

8.1.2 The fundamental objective underpinning the NPPF is the requirement for local planning authorities

to adopt a positive approach to development, which secures sustainable economic growth. The NPPF at paragraphs 24, 26 and 27 requires the application of the sequential test and an assessment of the impacts of applications for new retail development outside of town centres, not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. This is in order to secure sustainable patterns of development based on a town centre first policy.

8.1.3 The emerging Tamworth Local Plan 2011-2031 (eLP) was submitted to the Secretary of State for

examination on 6 February 2015 and is based on the most up-to-date evidence. The hearings in public were completed in June 2015, with the main modifications published in September this year with consultation on the main modifications to the plan ending on the 23rd October 2015. The only proposed modifications to the two most relevant policies (EC1 and EC2) in determining this application relate to the inclusion of specific reference to the need to review the retail requirement for the Borough if the Gungate scheme has not made substantial progress by 2020/21. As such, it is considered that significant weight can be attached to the policies within the eLP and the evidence which underpins it.

8.1.4 A key element of the eLP is to determine the strategy for delivering new main town centre uses

within the town centre i.e. a town centre first approach where the town centre is the preferred location for the development of main town centre uses. The Plan’s supporting text acknowledges the importance of controlling new development within the out of centre retail parks (where the current application is proposed):

Focussing retail and leisure investment in Tamworth Town Centre will balance the attraction with the out of town centre retail areas more towards the town centre. However, this will also require restricting the growth of the out of centre retail areas that could weaken the attraction of the town centre, especially until the Gungate redevelopment scheme becomes established. Whilst proposals to refurbish existing units and environmental and accessibility improvements will be encouraged, development which results in the creation of additional retail and or leisure floorspace at the existing out of centre retail parks at Ventura, Jolly Sailor, Cardinal Point & Tame Valley will therefore not be supported.

8.1.5 Policy EC1 (Hierarchy of Centres for Town Centre Uses) of the eLP states:

If development involving a main town centre use...is proposed outside of the town centre…it must demonstrate:- a) Compliance with the sequential test

b) Good accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport, c) That there will be no adverse impact on the vitality and viability of other existing centres d) Will not prejudice the delivery of other strategic objectives. “

This policy also provides a locally set threshold for impact assessments, which in relation to an application for main town centre uses in the out of town retail parks is required for new developments over 250 m2 gross.

8.1.6 Policy EC2 (Supporting Investment in Tamworth Town Centre) of the eLP states:

Development that will have a negative impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre and its function will not be supported unless it has been demonstrated that the wider economic benefits will outweigh the detriment to the town centre.

Within the explanatory text under Policy EC2 of the eLP provides express support for the Gungate development:

The Gungate development is seen as critical to delivering the regeneration of the town centre in terms of improving its offer to complement that of the out of town retail areas. The compact nature of its development and high quality design will link into the historic network of existing streets and although predominantly retail led, there may be opportunities to incorporate a mixture of uses including residential, leisure and offices. The Gungate will therefore be a key catalyst for bringing forward further investment in surrounding areas, increasing the town centre’s attractiveness and overall viability and vitality.

8.1.7 There is a relevant main modification proposed MM 30 which proposes to insert the following text

into Policy EC2 of the eLP which previously made no specific reference to Gungate:-

In particular, the Gungate Redevelopment Scheme for 20,660 sq m of comparison retail goods floorspace is proposed for completion prior to 2021. Other town centre uses will be permitted within this scheme in accordance with the criteria set out in policy EC3, and residential uses will be permitted on the upper floors.

If substantial progress has not been made towards securing the Gungate Scheme by 2020/21, the Council will review its retail requirement and will consider the potential for retail developments on other sites in accordance with the ‘town centre first’ hierarchy set out in policy EC1.

After 2021, planning permission will be granted for development such as retail (7,800 sq m comparison and 2,900 sq m convenience goods floorspace....”

The insertion of the wording into the policy emphasises the policy support for the Gungate development but also the insertion of the timeframe acknowledges that the scheme has real challenges in making progress.

8.1.8 In addition, there have been a number of recent court cases and planning appeal decisions that

have dealt with the issues which surround applications for new retail development, including the application of the sequential test and retail impacts:

Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13 (Dundee). R (on the application of Zurich Assurance Ltd t/a Thread needle Property Investments) v North Lincolnshire Council [2012] EWHC 3708 (Admin) (Zurich). R (CBRE Lionbrook (General Partners) Ltd v Rugby BC [2014] EWHC 646 (Admin) Cambridge Retail Park APP/E3525/A/13/2205251 Rushden Lakes APP/G2815/V/12/2190175 Meadowhall APP/J4423/A/13/2189893 Braintree APP/Z1510/A/14/2219101

These decisions, the NPPF (including its practice guidance) and the eLP are considered to be the main material considerations in determining the acceptability of this application in planning policy terms.

8.2 The sequential test (i.e. are more suitable town centre sites available); 8.2.1 The application of the sequential site assessment needs to be attached significant weight in

assessing the acceptability of the proposal. This approach to site selection seeks to focus new development within existing town centres, where only if sites within or on the edge of the centre are not suitable or available will an out of centre site be appropriate. The application site, located at Ventura Park is an out of centre site, which is why the application of the sequential assessment to site selection is necessary.

8.2.2 The NPPF at paragraph 24 sets out the requirement for the sequential test:

Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. 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. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.

8.2.3 Paragraph 27 of the NPPF then confirms that:

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

8.2.4 At paragraph 10 of the PPG the considerations necessary in determining whether a proposal

complies with the sequential test are set out:

With due regard to the requirement to demonstrate flexibility, has the suitability of more central sites to accommodate the proposal been considered? Where the proposal would be located in an edge-of-centre or out-of-centre location, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well-connected to the town centre. Any associated reasoning should be set out clearly.

Is there scope for flexibility in the format and/or scale of the proposal? It is not necessary to

demonstrate that a potential town centre or edge-of-centre site can accommodate precisely the scale and form of development proposed, but rather to consider what contribution more central sites are able to make individually to accommodate the proposal.

If there are no suitable sequentially preferable locations, the sequential test is passed.

8.2.5 In the application of the sequential test following relevant judgements and appeal decisions there are considered to be two main areas for assessment, the suitability and availability of sequentially preferable sites. Consideration of the suitability of sites has been referenced in a number of appeal and legal cases, most succinctly with the Inspector in the Rushden Lakes appeal. The Inspector considered that the Dundee case was of seminal importance and summarised what the case established in terms of suitability:

a) that if a site is not suitable for the commercial requirements of the developer in question

then it is not a suitable size for the purposes of the sequential approach; and b) that in terms of the size of the alternative site, provided that the applicant has demonstrated

flexibility with regards to format and scale, the question is whether the alternative site is suitable for the proposed development, not whether the proposed development could be altered or reduced so that it can be made to fit the alternative site.

8.2.6 So in the case of the current application as the proposal is for a Next Home and Garden store

encompassing the whole next range of goods, it would not be reasonable to expect them to split their operations between their brands, which is obvious in the case of Tamworth as there are already separate Next and Next Home stores located within the Borough’s out of centre retail parks. Therefore for any location to be considered sequentially preferable it would need to be able to accommodate the proposed store as a whole i.e.6, 922 sq.m. (including car parking and servicing areas) and not any smaller or disaggregated form of the proposed development. Consideration of the disaggregation of development proposals was a previous requirement within now outdated

guidance. This and the ancillary nature of the proposed café is the reason for not considering the impact of this element of the proposal. It is a matter of planning judgement for the Council to take as to whether a site is suitable to meet the requirements of the development proposed.

8.2.7 In terms of availability, there is little guidance as to what constitutes availability within the NPPF or

its guidance contrary to previous guidance, which allowed an amount of flexibility through allowing an assessment of sites that would be available within a reasonable time period. The issue of availability has again been the subject of discussion in appeal decisions and judgements. The absence of any detailed guidance has led to conclusions in appeal decisions that sites need to be available to accommodate the development based on the needs of the applicant ‘in the real world’ i.e. is a site available to meet the time demands of the applicant. This point is outlined in the Rushden lakes and Braintree cases. In the earlier Lionbrook case the appropriate timescale within which the sequential test should be judged is considered to be a matter for the Council to determine based on the merits of the case and local circumstances.

8.2.8 The Lionbrook case outlines the relationship between suitability and availability in terms of the

sequential test:

the crucial question for the Council in applying the sequential test was whether there were sites in or on the edge of the town centre that were both suitable and available for comparison goods shopping development of an appropriate kind and scale. If such a site was both suitable and available, it would have priority over the application site. But if the only suitable sites were unavailable, or the only available sites unsuitable, that would not be so.

Therefore it is necessary for a site to be both suitable and available in order to be reasonably considered as a sequentially preferable site.

8.2.9 The supporting Planning and Retail Statement (and subsequent letter submissions) consider 4 sites

within the town centre against the requirements of the sequential test. The Council agree that these represent the only potential sites for the development located in sequentially superior locations to the current proposal. The sites assessed are; Middle Entry; Spinning School Lane; Arriva Bus Depot Site and Car Park; and Gungate.

8.2.10 The Council can accept that the Middle Entry site is not currently available. The majority of units are

occupied and there has been no indication from the site owner that the site would be re-developed soon enough to reasonably be regarded as being available. Therefore Middle Entry can be discounted as not being available.

8.2.11 The Spinning School Lane and Arriva Bus Depot sites are both allocated within the eLP (Policy

HG1) for housing and as the sites are currently occupied (in part at least) by Staffordshire Police and Arriva respectively, it is therefore considered entirely reasonable to discount these two sites as not being available as there has been no indication that the current occupiers are to vacate the sites imminently.

8.2.12 However, the Gungate site benefits from outline planning permission for 20,660 sq.m. of retail

floorspace, has been partly cleared and is currently being used as a service car park. The delivery of Gungate is fundamental to the delivery of the retail element of the eLP, and therefore needs to be carefully considered as part of this proposal based on the suitability and availability of the site. Suitability:

8.2.13 The Next proposal is for a store of 6,957 sq.m. (gross) floorspace. The approved Gungate scheme

has a total floorspace of 20,660 sq.m. (gross) and it is intended to be used for comparison goods retail. The sizes of the individual units approved within the outline approval does not provide for a single unit that would allow the whole of the current proposal to fit comfortably within. This issue has been raised by Indigo and they assert that this means that the Gungate site is not suitable to accommodate the development proposed.

8.2.14 However, it is reasonable and certainly plausible in the real world (taking in to account the response

received from HBDL that they would be willing to amend the scheme to accommodate the Next proposal) for a unit of the size proposed, the required car parking, and servicing areas (which would not differ significantly from those approved) to be provided on the Gungate site. This is taking in to account the potential for a new planning permission to be required on the site that would allow Next

to trade from the site selling the wide range of town centre goods they intend within their proposed store. The Gungate site is therefore considered to be a site suitable of accommodating the development as proposed without significant alterations to the scheme.

Availability:

8.2.15 The Gungate site is currently being used as a surface car park, with all previous buildings on the site

having been cleared, with the exception of a row of terraced buildings fronting Marmion Street which it is understood are still occupied. As detailed above the site also benefits from planning permission for retail development at a scale larger than the current proposal. The availability of the site within a timescale that the Council consider to be soon enough to allow the site to be deemed an available sequentially preferable site is key to determining the acceptability of the current proposal and whether the sequential test is passed.

8.2.16 As detailed above there is no prescribed period on which to judge the matter of availability other

than what is considered to be reasonable. In this respect Indigo have highlighted Next’s desire to be open in the second half of 2016, with Homebase due to vacate the unit on the 19th December 2015 (as is evident from the posters adorning the unit currently) and construction of the proposed extension likely to start in January 2016 if permission is granted. This is the Next position on their immediate commercial need for the site.

8.2.17 During the Examination in Public (EiP) of the eLP the owners of the Gungate site identified a

timeline for the delivery of the Gungate scheme. This detailed a new marketing campaign to start in Q3 of 2015 through to a start on site in Q1 of 2017. Indigo consider that this timescale could lead to the site not being available for Next to occupy until 2021 and therefore the site could not be considered to be available. As far as the Council can ascertain a new marketing campaign has not yet commenced in order to attract occupiers to the site, and as such the timescale has slipped further from that provided at the EiP.

8.2.18 However, in response to this application HBDL advised that they could expedite the process of

developing the site and with an anchor tenant on board (such as Next) and that they could be at a point of practical build completion within 12 months of an agreement for lease. This would involve the submission and approval of a new planning application as part of that process and all that this would entail. It would not be unreasonable to consider that a site without planning permission could be considered an available site.

8.2.19 On the other hand, and as advised in recent decisions and judgements it is important that Council

work in the real world, taking account of the commercial realities of Tamworth. In so far as Next currently operate out of two existing units within the out of centre retail parks it is unlikely that they would consider being the retail anchor for the Gungate site. Indeed Indigo have confirmed that if Next cannot fulfil their requirement for a concept store at Ventura Park, they will look for alternative sites in towns elsewhere.

8.2.20 On balance, the fact that Next have an immediate commercial need for the proposed development,

with completion of the project envisaged in Q3 2016, the fact that Council’s are advised to consider the commercial realities of proposals in the real world and not one that applicant’s have no intention of living in, and the likely timescales that the submission and approval of reserved matters for the current scheme or the approval of a revised Gungate scheme would take to come forward leads to the conclusion that the Gungate site could not reasonable be considered to be available soon enough to be considered a sequentially preferable alternative to the current proposal.

8.2.21 In light of this conclusion the proposal is considered to pass the sequential test. As this conclusion is

based on the commercial needs of Next and the desire to be operational in Q3 of 2016 it is considered entirely reasonable for the proposed development to be for a limited time period of 1 year to allow for the implementation of the scheme. If the scheme as currently proposed has not been implemented within 1 year then this will allow the availability of the Gungate site to be re-assessed.

8.3 Retail impact; 8.3.1 It is worthwhile establishing the mechanics of the proposal at this point before considering the retail

impact of the proposed development.

8.3.2 As detailed above within the planning history the existing building benefits from permission for the insertion of a new mezzanine floor, which was granted subject to an undertaking not to complete an extant permission (0040/2001) at Matalan for an extension of 1,423 sq.m. in order to facilitate the approval of planning permission 0242/2012. The applicant’s have a current application for a Certificate of Lawful Development that seeks confirmation that the approved mezzanine has been implemented, therefore the approved Matalan extension can not be completed. The impact of this implemented floor space of 1,423 sq.m. does not need to be assessed in determining the merits of the retail impact of the scheme. Therefore in assessing these impacts in retail policy terms the assessment needs to be considered only in terms of the proposal minus the extant permission for an extension at Matalan and the change of use of the garden centre i.e. 6,922 sq.m. – 4,747 sq.m. = 2,175 sq.m. as detailed below in Table 1.

Table 1

Existing / Approved

Floorspace (m2) Proposed Additional Floorspace (m2)

Total Floorspace (m2)

Ground floor 2,889 846 (791 of which change from outdoor sales)

3,735

Garden centre outdoor sales

791 0 0

Mezzanine 1,858 1,329 3,187 Total 5,538 2,175 6,922

8.3.3 The proportionate, locally set floor space threshold is set at 250 sq.m. for new development within

the defined out of centre retail parks within Policy EC1 of the eLP, with no modifications proposed to this threshold. This application therefore also needs to be considered against the retail impact tests outlined at paragraph 26 of the NPPF, this includes an assessment of:

The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private

investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer

choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made.

8.3.4 Paragraph 27 of the NPPF as quoted above confirms that where an application is likely to have a

significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused. 8.3.5 The submitted impact assessment has been reviewed by E&L and considered against the trading

impact, impact on vitality and viability of the town centre and impact on investment in the town centre.

Trading Impact and Impact on Vitality and Viability:

8.3.6 An assessment of the trading impact of the proposal on the town centre is undertaken in order to

assess the likely impacts of the proposal on the town centre and cumulatively with other recent permissions and commitments as a percentage of turnover. The level of turnover of the town centre is currently estimated to be in the region of £147.88m for comparison goods, with the applicants predicting a 0.2% solus impact and a 2.8% overall trade diversion impact including commitments on the town centre. E&L predict a higher level of turnover uplift from the existing store trading as Homebase compared to Next and a higher level of trade draw from the town centre (18% compared to the 10% predicted by Indigo) and predict a 0.8% solus impact and a cumulative trade diversion with commitments of 4.5% in comparison goods from the town centre.

8.3.7 Trading impact needs to be considered in terms of the overall vitality and viability of the town centre.

Both Indigo and E&L agree that the town centre has a better than average level of vitality and viability but that there are weaknesses that need to be addressed, and that there needs to be an appropriate retail offer which in the case of Tamworth needs to compliment the strong offer at the out of centre retail parks. It is the view of E&L that the proposal would not have wider economic benefits which would outweigh the impact on the town centre.

8.3.8 The NPPF asserts as quoted above that development should be refused if a proposal would be

likely to have a significant adverse impact on town centre vitality and viability. The advice of E&L is

that even their higher level of predicted impact of 4.5% in comparison goods turnover would (in most instances) not be considered to be a significant adverse impact especially given the current good level of vitality and viability of the town centre. So whilst the proposal would undoubtedly have an impact on and compete with the existing comparison shops within the town centre that sells similar goods it is unlikely that there would be a demonstrable quantitative significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre.

Impact on Investment in the Town Centre:

8.3.9 The impact of the proposal needs to be considered in light of its potential to impact on planned

investment in the town centre, which in this case needs to be considered in terms of the delivery of the Gungate scheme. E&L have advised that the scheme is considered to be sufficiently advanced for any impact on the delivery of the scheme to be a material consideration. Particularly as the importance of the development is highlighted in the policies and supporting text of the eLP

8.3.10 E&L are concerned that there is a serious risk that allowing a large Next store at Ventura Park could

prejudice the delivery of the Gungate redevelopment at a time when HBDL are planning to implement the scheme. They also consider that the proposal could affect retailer confidence in locating at Gungate and reduce the ability of the scheme to attract national retailers which are lacking in the town centre at present. However, as Next already have a presence in the out of centre retail parks, the application is for an extension to an existing unencumbered retail unit, and the current status of the site as discussed about it is not considered that the serious risk identified by E&L could be reasonably translated in to the proposal having a demonstrable significant adverse impact on the delivery of the Gungate scheme.

8.6 Other Economic Considerations 8.6.1 The impact of the proposal on local employment is one of the criteria for determining the

acceptability of new development proposals. The submitted information details that the extension would facilitate an increase in employees at the unit by 23 full time (30 total) and 190 part time (215 total) employees but this would include transferring the existing 138 employees from the two existing Next stores (the split of these jobs between full and part time is unknown). Clearly the proposals would result in the creation of new jobs, which would be of benefit to the local community, and the Borough.

8.6.2 As part of an acknowledgement of the attractiveness of the out of centre retail parks to the south of

the town centre (where the current application is proposed), and the desire to improve the attractiveness of the existing links between the town centre and these retail parks the Council commissioned what is known as the ‘Tamworth Linkages Project’ which details projects and schemes to improve these links. Members will be aware of the recent transformation that has taken place along Ladybridge to improve its attractiveness and usability. This project has been formalised and forms part of the eLP evidence base. The importance of these links is acknowledged in Polices EC2 and EC5 and at Figure 4.1 of the eLP.

8.6.3 Policy EC2 of the eLP states:

Tamworth Town Centre will benefit from improved connectivity in terms of cycling, walking and public transport, to and from the existing out of town retail areas, …. Where possible development should contribute to enhancing the public realm through high quality building design, the town centre’s open spaces and linkages at strategic entrances to the town centre.

8.6.4 The applicant as part of their submission have proposed to make a contribution of £25k towards the

Tamworth Linkages project through a unilateral undertaking (under Section 106 of the Act). This contribution is proposed on the basis that the contribution is to be spent on improving the links between the site and the town centre. In this case the project identifies a number of improvements to the Riverdrive roundabout which include the improvement to the existing pedestrian crossings to make them more attractive to users and the provision of signage to encourage walking in the vicinity of the site.

8.6.5 It is considered that the proposed contribution towards the Tamworth Linkages Project would be

appropriate in order to contribute towards enhancing the public realm in the vicinity of the site and enhancing the links between the site and the town centre. This would help to mitigate some of the impacts on the town centre as a result of the proposal though increasing the attractiveness of the

links form the site to the town centre. This contribution is considered to be in compliance with the retirement s of the NPPF, its guidance and the CIL Regulations.

8.7 Design and layout; 8.7.1 An important consideration in determining the acceptability of this proposal is the impact of the

proposed development on the character and appearance of its immediate environs. The importance of design is highlighted in LP Policy ENV19, eLP Policy EN5 and paragraph 64 of the NPPF. The site is located within the confines of Ventura Park, an out of town retail park that has developed over the last 25 years with building styles and designs which reflect changes in retail design over this period. The most recently constructed buildings being the John Lewis Home store, Cardinal Point Retail Park, and the 3 restaurant units constructed on the former Allied Carpets site. These buildings have generally been constructed in dark modular cladding, with integrated glazed areas which give a modern crisp appearance.

8.7.2 The extension to the existing unit is proposed to the north of the building, replaces the existing

outdoor garden display area, and extends the bulk of the building closer to Riverdrive. Due to the recently constructed egress from this area of Ventura Park on to Riverdrive and the resultant loss of trees and landscaping the proposal will have two main prominent frontages. The larger elevation facing the existing car park and Bitterscote Drive and the newly prominent (as a result of the recently completed egress) corner of the extension facing Riverdrive.

8.7.3 The applicant’s have taken the opportunity of the proposed extension to update the whole façade of

the building to provide a unified design across the prominent elevations. The building is proposed with a stone like frame, which sits around large glazed areas. The glazed areas are set back from the surrounding pillars (which appear to support the building) and provide an element of shadow which will provide the building with some depth and certainly more design interest than the remaining units of this part of Ventura Park.

8.7.4 A number of the existing units within Ventura Park have undergone different forms of elevation

makeovers to provide more substantial glazed frontages, including the existing Next store within Ventura Park Phase 2 (to the east of the application site). These alterations are considered to have significantly improved the appearance and attractiveness of the units, and the current proposals are a further improvement to this and show how ‘big box’ out of centre retail design has evolved for the better since the early 1990s when the units were first constructed.

8.7.5 Whilst the extension would increase the prominence of the building when viewed from Riverdrive it

is not considered that this would be harmful to the character or appearance of the area, indeed the modern and crisp design of the building would improve the appearance of this part of Ventura Park and would have a positive impact on the retail park and enhance its built character. The proposal in design terms is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of LP Policy ENV19, eLP Policy EN5 and paragraph 64 of the NPPF.

8.8 Highway safety 8.8.1 The site (and the whole of Ventura Park Phase 1) benefits from a single vehicular access from a

roundabout on Ventura Park Road, which also provides access to Asda and Ventura Park Phase 2. A Transport Statement (TS) and supplemental parking survey has been submitted in support of the application. The TS assesses the policy background, sustainable transport, car parking, and a highway impact assessment.

8.8.2 The Highway Authority have confirmed that due consideration has been given to the impact

additional vehicular trips would have on the local highway network and agree with the assessment undertaken that the local road network would continue to operate within capacity during the peak periods (weekday am and pm and Saturday peak).

8.8.3 Due to the location of the proposed extension to the north of the existing building and the creation of

a hard surfaced are in front of the store 7 parking spaces are lost as a result of the proposal. This results in the whole customer parking area for Ventura Park Phase 1 providing 452 car parking spaces. In support of the application a car park occupancy survey was undertaken between 4pm – 6pm on Friday the 2nd October and 2pm – 4pm on Saturday the 3rd October. The survey identified the maximum occupancy recorded was approximately 85% capacity with more than 60 spaces still available, mostly at the northern end of the car park, nearest to the application site. The proposed

vehicular trip generation undertaken for the proposed development (taking in to account a reduction for linked trips) identifies an additional 44 arrivals and 51 departures during the Saturday peak (3pm -4pm) as a result of the extension. It is therefore considered that the capacity of the car park as a result of the proposal would be able to accommodate the additional demand placed on it as a result of the proposed development. This view has been confirmed by the Highway Authority.

8.8.4 In terms of staff parking there are currently 60 staff parking spaces within the service area that

served both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Ventura Park, which are available for use by the occupants of Unit 1. A car parking survey was undertaken of this parking area at 1pm on Saturday the 31st October, Sunday the 1st November and again on Saturday the 7th November and Sunday the 8th November. Of the spaces available the maximum occupancy of the staff car parking area was 19. Whilst a significant number of people are employed within these areas of Ventura Park the level of staff car parking demand is relatively low and the existing staff car parking spaces are considered to be sufficient for the increase in demand as a result of the proposed extension.

8.8.5 In addition, the extension to Matalan (detailed above within the planning history) as approved

granted the erection of an extension to the south of the building, which if constructed would have resulted in the loss of 23 car parking spaces (including 5 disabled spaces). Therefore as a result of the requirement for the applicants to forego the Matalan permission in favour of the current (and previously approved mezzanine approval) application these parking spaces will be retained for customers at the retail park.

8.8.6 Whilst the current issues and concerns with regard to car parking on Ventura Park are

acknowledged, the information submitted is considered to adequately address these concerns in respect of the current application. However in order to ensure that this remains the case when the store is operational the Highway Authority have requested that a Construction Vehicle Management Plan and a Car Parking Management Plan are submitted and approved as part of a mitigation strategy. The applicant’s have indicated that they are willing to enter in to such an agreement.

8.8.7 The existing servicing area for the unit has not changed as part of the proposal and will continue

from the rear of the building in the large service yard which serves Ventura Park Phases 1 and 2, which is considered to be appropriate.

8.8.8 The site is considered to be located in an area which is generally well served by alternative modes

of transport to the private car, with regular bus services to and from the town centre during the day provided at Bitterscote Drive and Ventura Park Road. For an out of centre retail location the site is considered to be reasonably well catered for by existing bus services. In addition, the applicant has included the provision of a 10 bay cycle store to the rear of the building in order to encourage the use of cycles by staff at the unit.

8.8.9 As a result of the assessments undertaken, and the requirement to submit Construction Vehicle

Management Plan and a Car Parking Management Plan the impact of the proposal on the local highway network and the level of parking provision at the site the proposal is not considered to give rise to significant or severe impacts and is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of LP Policy TRA3, eLP Policies EN5 and SU1 and paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

8.9 Flood risk and drainage; 8.9.1 The application site is located within Flood Zone 3, which represents an area with a greater than 1%

chance of annually flooding. However, the site does benefit from existing flood defences. A Flood Risk and Run-off Assessment (FRA) has been submitted in support of the application. The report concludes that as the site of the proposed extension is currently an impermeable area there will be no increase in run-off from the proposed development. The Environment Agency has confirmed that they have no objections to the proposal on flood risk grounds.

8.9.2 Following the response received from the Lead Local Flood Authority (SCC), there were initial

concerns regarding the impact of the development on an existing culvert, which crosses the site. However, the proposed extension has been altered slightly in order to provide two options for the culvert i.e. either a reduction in loading on the existing culvert or a diversion of the existing pipe, which are considered to be acceptable to the LLFA subject to a condition requiring the approval of the final scheme. Overall the proposal is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of eLP Policy SU4 and paragraph 103 of the NPPF.

8.10 Conclusion 8.10.1 This recommendation is one which is finely balanced. However, the requirements for Local Planning

Authorities to act in the real world taking in to account relevant material considerations in addition to planning policy and guidance in taking decisions on planning application has led to this recommendation for approval.

8.10.2 Whilst the preferred location for any new retail floor space is the town centre, in this instance and as

a result of a detailed assessment of the suitability and availability of sites within the town centre there are not considered to be any available suitable sequentially preferable sites that could accommodate the proposal at this point in time, which justifies the limited time period for the implementation of the proposal. Following careful consideration the impacts associated with the proposal on the town centre in terms of impacts on retail trading, the vitality and viability of the town centre and on the delivery of the Gungate site the proposal is not considered to have a demonstrable significant adverse impact on these matters.

8.10.3 The physical alterations to the existing building and the updating of its current tired appearance with

a modern and crisply designed new building would improve the appearance of this part of Ventura Park and would have a positive impact on the retail park and enhance its built character. This coupled with the additional jobs created, and contributions towards improving the attractiveness of the links from the site to the town centre all weigh in favour of the proposal.

8.10.4 In addition, the proposal is not considered to impact detrimentally on highway safety or increase

flood risk. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and its practice guidance, Policies TRA3 and ENV19 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011, Policies EC1, EC2, EC5, and SU1 of the emerging Tamworth Local Plan 2011-2031, and the relevant material considerations identified within this report.

Conditions / Reasons 1. The development shall be started within one year of the date of this permission. Reason: In the interests of ensuring that the development is implemented when the need for the development is pertinent, if the development has not been commenced within 1 year the Council wish to re-visit their assessment of the proposal as it is likely that the material considerations of this case will have changed. In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with the application form and the following Drawing Numbers: 2752-102 Revision B (including the provision of cycle parking) 2752-106 Revision A 2752-107 Revision A 2752-108 Revision A unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To define the approval. 3. No development hereby approved shall be commenced until a Construction Vehicle Management Plan comprising details of site compound, type of vehicles, provision for parking of vehicles for site operatives and visitors, loading and unloading of plant and materials, and storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented prior to any works commencing on site. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure that the construction period of the development is managed in an efficient way and to reduce the likelihood of vehicles queuing on the adopted highway as recommended by the Highway Authority in accordance with Policy TRA3 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2006-2011, and Policy EN5 of the emerging Tamworth Local Plan 2011-2031. 4. No development hereby approved shall be commenced until a scheme to ensure access and protection of the existing culvert is submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing I phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure the structural integrity of the existing structure assets and thereby reducing the risk of flooding as recommended

by the Lead Local Flood Authority in accordance with Policy SU4 of the emerging Tamworth Local Plan 2011-2031 and the provisions of the NPPF. 5. No development hereby approved shall be commenced until details of all materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing, the development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance to the development in accordance with Policy ENV19 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011, and Policy EN5 of the emerging Tamworth Local Plan 2011-2031. 6. Prior to the first use of the development a Car Park Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved plan is to be implemented prior to the opening of the extended store and to be reviewed annually, or as required by the Local planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to assist with the efficient operation of the parking provision and to reduce the likelihood of vehicles queuing on the adopted highway as recommended by the Highway Authority in accordance with Policy TRA3 of the Tamworth Local Plan 2006-2011, and Policy EN5 of the emerging Tamworth Local Plan 2011-2031.

Informative Note(s) 1. The applicant is advised to note and act up as necessary the attached letter from Staffordshire Police dated the 8th September 2015. 2. The applicant is advised to note the following comments of the Lead Local Flood Authority: The treatment and any diversion of the Tame tributary 925mm culvert would require the prior written approval of the Staffordshire County Council Flood Risk Management Team under s.23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 so we are able to assess the preferred option. In order to give our Consent to this scheme, we welcome as-built drawings, a method statement, calculations to demonstrate no undue loading and long sections. We would welcome foundation details to ascertain the proximity for any future improvement works to the culverted stretch. Application for Consent costs £50 and we will work with the Applicant to ensure that the scheme is not unduly delayed by virtue of applying for Consent. 3. The applicant is advised to note the comments of Joint waste Services: It is a legal requirement that commercial waste is securely contained in suitable and sufficient containers, cannot be vandalised, kicked over or interfered with and transferred to a suitable licensed person for transport and disposal. Provision must also be made to remove a stream of recycling material from their waste.

Application Number: 0357/2015 Development: Retrospective change of use from wholesale warehouse (Class B8) to a

retail warehouse club (sui generis use) with ancillary car parking, service area and external storage area.

Location: JTF Warehouse, Ninian Way, Tame Valley Industrial Estate, Tamworth

Staffordshire Target Date: 23 December 2015

1 Site and Surroundings 1.1 The application site is located to the south of Tamworth Borough within the Tame Valley Industrial

Estate. The site sits adjacent Ninian Way in a partly commercial and partly industrial area. The site has reasonably convenient access to the wider road hierarchy and is accessible by various means of transport. The building is accompanied by 75 parking spaces and is accessed via a communal road that also serves a furniture moving and storage business.

1.2 The applicants assert the extant use of the site is B8 (Storage and Distribution) owing to planning

permission 0176/2008 where B8 consent was approved and subsequently implemented. The use has been operating since September 2011. JTF consider the ongoing use as a ‘wholesale warehouse’ is B8. Officers do not concur with this view and having researched the company and the operation, consider the use of the site was previously A1 retail and as such does not benefit from a previous consent. This unauthorised use is the starting point of the current submission, not the B8 use quoted by the applicants.

1.2 The applicants state that owing to changes in JTF’s business model, the company is operating as a

retail warehouse club (sui generis) and not a cash and carry business ‘serving only wholesale clients’ as was previously the case. The company is in negotiation with the landlord of the site to renew its lease and are required to regularise their perceived planning position to ensure the operation benefits from a lawful permitted use. The applicants state ‘accordingly, the purpose of this application is to enable the operation of the property as a private retail club (i.e. it operates a membership card system) but would open up the membership scheme to members of the public … it is important to recognise that the planning application does not seek to establish a retail (A1) use on the site.’

2 Proposal 2.1 The application seeks retrospective change of use of the site to a retail warehouse club (sui

generis). As above, although the applicants quote B8 as the existing use, Officers do not consider this to be the case.

2.2 The site is 0.6Ha and contains a building with a gross floor area of 4,180sqm (45,000sqft) of internal

area. The use also operates a 348sqm (3750sqft) external display and storage area located to the front of the building. Loading and unloading is via a defined route to the rear of the site and is served via the same access to the parking area to the front of the premises. No changes to the access or delivery arrangements are intended by the proposals.

2.3 The following documents have been submitted in support of the application (all are available for

inspection on the council’s website at www.tamworth.gov.uk):

Planning and Retail Statement Design and Access Statement Transport Statement Site layout plan

3 Key Issues

Assessment of sequentially preferable locations

Assessment of the impact upon the town centre and neighbourhood centres Assessment against Local Plan Policy EMP3 and eLP Policy EC7 in relation to the effects

on the wider employment area and consideration of other material considerations The transport implications of the proposal under Local Plan Policy TRA3

4 Conclusion 4.1 The application seeks retrospective change of use of the site to a retail warehouse club (sui

generis). The application is accompanied by a sequential assessment with specific criteria in relation to the applicant’s minimum requirements. Tamworth Borough Council has commissioned an independent review of the sequential assessment. This report considers that the assumptions underpinning the reasoning why the applicant could not occupy more centrally located premises is sound and that the sequential assessment submitted is reflective of the available premises which could reasonably be considered. The report considers the sequential assessment is passed. Regarding retail impacts, the Council commissioned assessment adopts a higher turnover figure for the proposed retail warehouse club than utilised by the applicant for sensitivity purposes. This assessment concludes that the proposed development would have a limited impact upon the vitality and viability of existing centres. As such the proposal is judged to accord with NPPF para 24 and 26 and Emerging Local Plan Policy EC1.

4.2 Officers accept that the evidence provided demonstrates there are no more suitable locations

outside of the employment areas for a business of this type, that the site does possess good accessibility by various means of transport and that there will not be a negative impact on the vitality, viability and function of the employment area particularly in relation to customer parking. To the contrary there is some concern about the loss of an employment unit which could potentially be used for a more traditional employment use. However the employment aspects of the proposals must also be given weight in this assessment. The Economic Development Officer considers that the level of job creation for a use of this nature (stated as 37 FTE jobs) is high for the amount of space taken and a warehouse or similar use would be unlikely to provide such a level of employment. Moreover, the proposal does secure economic development in an accessible, sustainable location within the town and within a similarly commercial context than traditional employment areas. The use does not impact the town or local centre in a significant way and in reality, a building of this nature is the only viable way of accommodating a retail warehouse of this type. These factors weigh considerably in favour of the proposal despite the conflict apparent regarding the loss of the space from the wider portfolio of employment sites. In the Officers view these matters outweigh the identified conflict with criterion a) of eLP Policy EC7.

4.3 The Council sought further information from the applicant to consider the implications of the

proposal in terms of parking and employment land implications. In doing so it is considered the Council acted in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF.

Recommendation

Approve subject to conditions

0357/2015

This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright.

II

G GG G G G G G G G

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

R

II

I

I

I

NIN

IAN

WA

Y

Path and Cycle Path

SM

SM

Subway

El Sub Sta

Posts

FORTIES

Pat

ha

5 Relevant Site History

0070/2002 – Proposed DIY and Bulky Goods Store approved on appeal. As part of the application a legal agreement was signed this relinquished a previous use at the site.

0176/2008 - Change of use of premises from A1 to B1, B2 and B8 uses. Approval subject to conditions.

6 Consultation Responses 6.1 Tamworth Borough Council Development Plans

National Planning Policy Framework

Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraphs 6-10 provide more detail on sustainable development and highlight the importance of balancing economic, social and environmental elements. Paragraph 6 advises that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievements of sustainable development. The policies in paragraphs 18-219, taken as a whole, constitute the government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system. Paragraph 17 outlines the 12 Core planning principles that should underpin both plan making and decision taking, and as such are relevant to this application.

Adopted and Emerging Local Plan

The application relates to an industrial unit on the west side of Ninian Way, on the Tame Valley Industrial Estate. This employment area is defined in the emerging Local Plan as a strategic employment area. The Council, through emerging Policies EC6 and EC7, protects strategic employment areas for employment generating uses within use classes B1 (b, c), B2 and B8.

The previous use of the site was B8, which is in accordance with these policies. The new use, which is already operating, is a retail warehouse club which is sui generis. However, the NPPF defines retail uses which include warehouse clubs as main town centre uses. As such, the proposal does not comply with the NPPF or emerging Local Plan policy. Town centre policies EC1 and EC2 set out the preference for town centre locations for main town centre uses, with EC1 setting out the centre hierarchy and sequential approach to site selection starting with Tamworth town centre, followed by the local and neighbourhood centres. EC1 also states the requirement for an impact assessment, which applies to proposals above 250sqm gross within strategic employment areas.

The applicant states that the use has been in operation since 2011 and has not caused any issues or complaints in the surrounding area but there are fundamental policy issues that need to be addressed. The applicant has submitted a planning and retail statement which explains the business model and requirements. The case officer should be satisfied that the evidence presented demonstrates that the sequential test has been undertaken appropriately and considers all sites in sequence.

In terms of the impact assessment, I am particularly concerned about the impact of the proposal on the vitality and viability of the town centre and nearby neighbourhood and local centres at Dosthill, Hockley Road and Wilnecote. I am not convinced by the trade nature of the operation, the planning statement says that the average spend is £24.88 which does not imply bulk buying. The membership scheme is open to anyone, not confined to trade as a member of the public can turn up and join on the spot. Furthermore, the planning statement states that only 30% of sales across the group are trade sales. I agree that it would not cater for a full convenience shop but of the goods that are sold, food and drink accounts for 12%, the third highest, then if household cleaning (5%) pet food (4%) and toiletries (1%) are added in, this accounts for 22% of goods available, all of which are available in convenience shops in the town centre, local and neighbourhood centres.

If the principle of the proposal is found to be acceptable, emerging Policy SU2 requires development to ensure adequate highways safety, suitable access, car and cycle parking is provided and sustainable modes of transport are prioritised. Emerging Policy SU3 requires new development to address the causes of climate change through development appropriate measures. Emerging Policy SU4 requires development to be safe from flood risk, not increase flood risk elsewhere and use sustainable drainage systems to manage surface water.

Conclusion The proposal is contrary to the emerging Local Plan policies designed to protect strategic employment areas. It is also contrary to the NPPF and needs to satisfy the sequential test and impact assessment in terms of its impact on the town centre and nearby neighbourhood and local centres.

6.2 England & Lyle – The Council’s Retail Consultants

Sequential Assessment of Available premises

The Retail Statement identifies that there are a number of vacant premises within the town centre, with the largest being the former Superdrug unit, which will be available from January 2016. The unit extends to 450 sq.m. and therefore provides substantially less floorspace than required by the proposed use and it is therefore evident that the unit can be readily discounted on the grounds of suitability. The remaining vacant units within the town centre are smaller than the former Superdrug unit and, accordingly, can also be discounted on the grounds of suitability.

Contour Planning also give consideration to the suitability and availability of town centre development sites to accommodate the proposed retail floorspace, including Gungate. However, it is noted that the applicant identifies that JTF’s business model is reliant on low overheads, which includes the rent that can be paid on premises. It is therefore suggested that the business model does not lend itself to covering the cost of renting prime retail units or developing out a new site. Nonetheless, the applicant gives consideration to the Gungate site and concludes that the nature of the retail environment proposed within the approved redevelopment scheme is not compatible with the nature / scale / format of JTF’s operation and, as such, is unsuitable to accommodate the proposals. England & Lyle are in agreement that the proposed retail warehouse club is highly unlikely to be an attractive and appropriate tenant for the key town centre regeneration scheme at Gungate and, as such, we accept the applicant’s conclusion that the site is unsuitable to accommodate the proposed development.

In summary, it is accepted that there are no suitable and available sequentially preferable sites capable of accommodating the proposed development. We are therefore satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the sequential test in the context of guidance contained within the NPPF and accompanying PPG.

Retail Impact Assessment

The submitted Planning & Retail Statement provides differing figures for the turnover of the operation for the year ending 2013/14. Paragraph 7.11 suggests a turnover of £4.5m, which would equate to a sales density of £1,125 / sq.m. based on a net sales area of 4,000 sq.m. However, Paragraph 7.14 suggests that the turnover for 2013/14 was £4.1m, equating to a sales density of £1,025 / sq.m.

The Planning & Retail Statement confirms that, based upon JTF’s experience in operating both formats, it is assumed that the turnover of a cash and carry would increase by 2% per annum and a retail warehouse club by 5% per annum. The applicant suggests that the ratio of trade to private customers for the retail warehouse club is 30:70 and we would accept the applicant’s conclusion that trade sales should not be included in the assessment, as they are derived from a different pool of expenditure. Notwithstanding the discrepancies outlined above, we would broadly accept the applicant’s suggested sales density based upon the higher total turnover figure, as well as the suggested 30:70 trade to private customer ratio.

However, due to the lack of direct comparables, for sensitivity purposes England & Lyle have undertaken a revised impact assessment based upon a sales density of £2,500 / sq.m., which is slightly below the sales density of a standard bulky goods retailer (approximately £3,000 / sq.m.). This would equate to a total 2015 turnover of £10.0m based upon a net sales area of 4,000 sq.m. By

applying a 70:30 private to trade customer ratio, the retail turnover of the retail warehouse club will be £7.0m in 2015 in this scenario. We have also applied the applicant’s suggested 5% per annum increase in turnover to estimate the retail turnover of the store in 2018 and 2020. Table 1a provided at Appendix 1 provides details of England & Lyle’s revised estimate of the turnover of the proposed retail warehouse club.

Tables 1b and 1c at Appendix 1 contain revised impact tables based on England & Lyle’s estimate of the turnover and trade draw of the proposed development. It is anticipated that 40% of the retail warehouse club’s trade will be drawn from Ventura Retail Park with a 1.1% impact in 2020, with 30% drawn from Tamworth Town Centre (1.5% impact) and 20% drawn from other retail warehouses in Tamworth (6.0% impact). We are therefore satisfied that under the scenario tested by England & Lyle, which adopts a higher turnover figure for the proposed retail warehouse club than utilised by the applicant for sensitivity purposes, that the proposed development would have a limited impact upon the vitality and viability of existing centres. It should also be noted that the scenario tested by England & Lyle does not take into account the turnover of the established cash and carry use, which has been absorbed into the local retail system and, accordingly, may further overstate the overall impact of the proposed retail warehouse club operation.

England and Lyle are therefore satisfied that the current application proposals can be seen to satisfy the key policy tests applied to proposals for main town centre uses in out-of-centre locations, namely the sequential and impact tests.

6.3 Staffordshire County Council Highway Authority

No objections subject to the assumption that the outside storage area will be limited to its present extent and will not lead to the loss of further parking.

6.4 Tamworth Borough Council Economic Development

In response to the application above for a retrospective change in use the Economic Development Team has the following comments:

The proposed use does not sit well with the adjoining unit that is of a B8 class. It is our view

that were the adjoining unit to become vacant the use class suggested may act as a potential deterrent for more traditional activities and therefore be difficult to let. This is due to the shared site access and configuration of the customer car park.

The change of use from B8 removes from circulation a good quality unit with high eaves

space that may be suitable to growing and developing local businesses that operate in more standard activities such as logistics, engineering, manufacturing and innovation. The ED team is starting to see increased demand for good quality, well located industrial space that is proving difficult to find.

However we are minded to support the application in this instance only for the following

reasons: o The level of job creation is strong for the amount and type of space taken. o The adjoining unit was vacant and has been let by a suitable user since the current occupier

has been on site and seems to operate unimpeded. 6.5 Tamworth Borough Council Environmental Protection

No objections 6.6 Joint Waste Services

No objections to the scheme, standard commercial waste requirements apply 7 Additional Representations 7.1 No public representations in relation to the proposal have been received.

8 Planning Considerations 8.1 Nationally, the fundamental objective underpinning the NPPF is the requirement for local planning

authorities to adopt a positive approach to development which secures sustainable economic growth. The NPPF at paragraphs 24 and 26 requires the application of the sequential test and an assessment of the impacts of proposals for new retail (including retail warehouse clubs), leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. The NPPF requires this so the efficient use of land can be ensured and so the impacts of proposals on existing provision can be assessed.

8.2 Locally, in addition to the extant Local Plan which sets out policies for employment areas, the

emerging Local Plan (eLP) is now a relevant consideration. The eLP was submitted to the Secretary of State for examination on 6 February 2015 and is based on the most up-to-date evidence. The hearings in public were completed in June 2015, with the main modifications published in September this year and the consultation ended on the 23rd October 2015. The eLP broadly reflects the policies in the extant local plan but offers more specific criteria for compliance in EC1 and EC7. The only proposed modifications to the two most relevant policies EC1 and EC2 relates to the inclusion of specific reference to the need to review the retail requirement for the Borough if the Gungate scheme has not made substantial progress towards securing the scheme by 2020/21. As such, significant weight can be attached to the policies within the eLP and the evidence which underpins it.

Assessment of sequentially preferable locations for the proposal (NPPF para 24)

8.3 The sequential assessment process involves looking at suitable and available alternative premises

in more sustainably positioned sites than that proposed. The assessment sets aside ownership to some degree, and examines - within reason - the prospects for a similar development coming forward on the alternative site with a view to ensuring existing land in sustainable locations is used efficiently.

8.4 A sequential assessment is required in this case because the use is a Main Town Centre Use as

defined in the NPPF and the application site is located on an employment area and is not within a town or local centre. As such a search of other available premises must be carried out via a sequential assessment. A number of parameters such as a minimum sales area of 3006sqm, external display space, minimum car parking of 80 spaces, servicing for large vehicles, high ceilings to accommodate racking, minimum site area of 0.5Ha approx have informed the search criteria by the applicant.

8.5 The vacant Superdrug town centre premises were considered. These are the largest existing

premises available within the town centre. The unit is 450 sq.m. and is split across 2 floors. The assessment considers that whilst this is available, it is much below the required floor area for their business model, is not single level as per the applicant’s requirements given the bulkier nature of the goods sold internally, has no external space for storage and would be difficult for customers with bulky goods to load their vehicles from. As such the largest existing available unit in the town centre is dismissed in the submission as being unsuitable for reuse by this applicant. The submission similarly asserts that all other existing units available within the town and local centres too would not be a feasible alternative for the applicant as a floor area of upto 10 times larger than the average unit available is required.

8.6 The applicants have also considered the potential ‘anchor’ role available within the Gungate

Precinct Re-development. The applicants assert that because JTF is not a traditional retailer and its operation is not conducive to new town centre retail developments given the bulky nature of the goods sold. The applicants also assert that, setting aside the premises are not presently available for use, the investment capital is not available to take forward such a development and as such an alternative of this type is not viable for the business.

8.7 Tamworth Borough Council has commissioned an independent review of the sequential assessment

submitted by England and Lyle. This report considers that the assumptions underpinning the reasoning why JTF could not occupy more centrally located premises is sound and that the sequential assessment submitted is reflective of the available premises which could reasonably be considered. As such no objections from England and Lyle are raised in relation to the sequential assessment portion of the submitted application. Officers see no reason to disagree with the conclusions reached in this report.

Impact upon the town centre and neighbourhood centres (NPPF Para 26) 8.8 The requirement for an Impact Assessment is locally set at 250 sq.m. under eLP Policy EC1 and is

substantially below the local threshold of 2500sqm within the NPPF. No modifications are proposed to this lower threshold as part of the ongoing local plan process. This application therefore needs to be considered against the retail impact tests. These include an assessment of the:

The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private

investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer

choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made.

8.9 Detailed retail study data has been provided by the applicants. This data has been appraised by

England and Lyle and the implications for committed developments such as Gungate Precinct and the town centre and local centre retail impacts are considered within the report.

8.10 The Planning & Retail Statement confirms that, based upon JTF’s experience in operating both retail

formats, it is assumed that the turnover of the existing cash and carry would increase by 2% per annum and a retail warehouse club by 5% per annum. The applicant suggests that the ratio of trade to private customers for the retail warehouse club is 30:70 and England and Lyle accept the applicant’s conclusion that trade sales should not be included in the assessment, as they are derived from a different pool of expenditure. England and Lyle broadly accept the applicant’s suggested sales density based upon the higher total turnover figure, as well as the suggested 30:70 trade to private customer ratio.

8.11 Due to the lack of direct comparables, for sensitivity purposes England & Lyle have undertaken a

revised impact assessment based upon a sales density of £2,500 / sq.m., which is slightly below the sales density of a standard bulky goods retailer (approximately £3,000 / sq.m.). This would equate to a total 2015 turnover of £10.0m based upon a net sales area of 4,000 sq.m. By applying a 70:30 private to trade customer ratio, the retail turnover of the retail warehouse club will be £7.0m in 2015 in this scenario. England and Lyle have also applied the applicant’s suggested 5% per annum increase in turnover to estimate the retail turnover of the store in 2018 and 2020. Table 1a provides details of England & Lyle’s revised estimate of the turnover of the proposed retail warehouse club.

8.12 Tables 1b and 1c at Appendix 1 within England and Lyle’s report contain revised impact tables

estimating the turnover and trade draw of the proposed development. It is anticipated that 40% of the retail warehouse club’s trade will be drawn from Ventura Retail Park with a 1.1% impact in 2020, with 30% drawn from Tamworth Town Centre (1.5% impact) and 20% drawn from other retail warehouses in Tamworth (6.0% impact). Under the scenarios tested by England & Lyle, which adopt a higher turnover figure for the proposed retail warehouse club than utilised by the applicant for sensitivity purposes, England and Lyle conclude that the proposed development would have a limited impact upon the vitality and viability of existing centres.

8.13 It should also be noted that the scenario tested by England & Lyle does not take into account the

turnover of the established cash and carry use, which has been absorbed into the local retail system and, accordingly, may further overstate the overall impact of the proposed retail warehouse club operation. The independent report from England and Lyle concludes that they are satisfied that the current application proposals will not have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town or local centres within the catchment of the proposals.

Overall, Officers are satisfied that the sequential assessment aspects of the proposal are passed and that the retail impact aspects of the proposal are not significant in this case.

Assessment against Local Plan Policy EMP3 and eLP Policy EC7 in relation to the effects on the wider employment area and consideration of other material considerations

8.14 Both Local Plan Policy EMP3 and EC7 seek to ensure uses proposed within employment areas are

traditional employment type uses within the B1b/c (light industrial), B2 (general industry) and B8 (storage and distribution) categories. However because EMP3 is a strict policy with little flexibility it is judged to be only of medium compliance with the NPPF. Officers therefore consider the emerging plan and evidence represents a more up to date position in terms of the Borough approach to employment land going forward, and thus is given more weight. eLP EC7 goes further to state that:

Where planning permission is proposed for non B1 (b,c), B2 and B8 uses within strategic employment areas, the development will be required to demonstrate:

a) through an independent assessment, that the site is no longer attractive to the market for its

existing permitted use, b) evidence to demonstrate that there are no other more suitable locations outside of strategic

employment areas that are available c) good accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport, and d) there will be no direct or cumulative negative impact on the vitality, viability or function of

strategic employment areas and other centres. 8.15 The applicant has supplied an opinion on the attractiveness to the market for the existing permitted

use as B1, B2 B8. Whilst not strictly an independent assessment as per the policy, Officers have nevertheless considered the merits of the submissions. The applicant asserts that the existing use as a ‘cash and carry’ is lawfully B8. They therefore argue that the site is not attractive to the market because it is not currently available to other users (due to JTF’s lawful occupation of the premises). Officers do not strictly concur with this view. However notwithstanding the applicants suggest their

research has identified several other large warehouses available (for rent and/or sale) with Tamworth, indicative of a market where supply is outstripping demand. The applicant considers:

‘this [the surplus supply of B8 type units) is confirmed within the Tamworth Employment Land Review Stage 2 Report (Prepared by NLP in Dec 2013). This document notes that Tamworth as a location for distribution uses (i.e. Class B8) suffers due to its proximity to Birmingham. Furthermore, the Council’s 2012 Employment Land Review identified 3.61 hectares of potential land for employment uses (arising from potential redevelopment) in the Tame Valley Employment Area and that 18% of floorspace within the Tame Valley Industrial Estate was vacant. By way of update, NLPs surveys in mid-2013 indicated that about 65,000 sq m of B2/B8 industrial space was actively being marketed (representing 10% of the total industrial stock). More specifically NLP noted (at Para 9.36) that “based on the current ‘stock’ of floorspace in Tamworth Borough, there is a considerable supply of B8 industrial units, comprising 50% of all floorspace in the Borough, compared to 40% for B2 and just 10% for B1a office”’

8.16 In summary therefore the applicants consider that the Borough has a considerable supply of B8

industrial units with 10-15% of these currently vacant. Consequently the loss of the already occupied B8 unit to a sui generis retail warehouse has not had a harmful impact on the portfolio of available sites since vacant stock remains within the Borough. In addition the absence of a more suitable alternative location, and having regard to the employment created, there are clear positive economic benefits associated with the scheme. As such the applicant considers, setting aside that the policy is not yet adopted, that the Council should be flexible in the application of eLP policy EC7.

8.17 In consultation with Tamworth Borough Council Economic Development it is apparent that there is

an element of concern regarding the loss of the unit to a retail type operation as such a unit could offer suitable premises for logistics, engineering and manufacturing businesses. There is also concern that the retail type activities with visiting customers could put off an occupier of the unit to the rear. However Economic Development also accepts that versus a logistics type use, the level of job creation is high for the amount of space taken and that the adjoining unit has already been let by a furniture removals business with seemingly no operational difficulties. Balancing up these matters, Economic Development are minded to support the proposals given the level of employment generation and wider supply chain employment benefits associated with the scheme.

8.18 Officers accept that the evidence provided demonstrates there are no more suitable locations

outside of the employment areas (b), the site does possess good accessibility by various means of transport (c) and that there will not be a negative impact on the vitality, viability and function of the employment area (d). To the contrary there is some concern about the loss of an employment unit which could potentially be used for a more traditional employment use. However much like the Economic Development Officer, the employment aspects of the proposals must also be given weight in this assessment. The Economic Development Officer considers that the level of job creation for a use of this nature (stated as 37 FTE jobs) is high for the amount of space taken and a warehouse or similar use would be unlikely to provide such a level of employment. Moreover, the proposal does secure economic development in an accessible, sustainable location within the town and within a similarly commercial context than traditional employment areas. The use does not impact the town or local centre in a significant way and in reality, a building of this nature is the only viable way of accommodating a retail warehouse of this type. These factors weigh considerably in favour of the proposal despite the conflict apparent regarding the loss of the space from the wider portfolio of employment sites. In the Officers view these matters outweigh the identified conflict with criterion a) of eLP Policy EC7.

The transport implications of the proposal under Local Plan Policy TRA3

8.19 The site has a total parking capacity of 81 spaces including the overflow parking further into the site

of 20 spaces. The applicant has carried out a study of the available parking within the site on two days midweek and on Friday-Sunday on W/C 9 November 2015. The study found on weekdays there were no parking capacity issues with a maximum of 64 spaces (80%) occupied. On weekends the capacity of the site was exceeded a small amount for 1 hour Sunday morning and 1.5 hours Saturday afternoon. The surveyor noted that at these times, an element of informal parking within unmarked bays was observed. These areas included the space to the west of the third party site and adjacent to the foliage at the southern section of the car park. The surveyor’s observations indicated that despite there being no parking restrictions on Ninian Way, the JTF operation did not result in on street parking. Moreover, the survey references TRICS report 99/2 Para 4.13 which

states that ‘If the product is attractive, customers will adjust their travel behaviour to find less congested visiting times.’ The survey concludes that the retrospective nature of the application means that popularity of the store is unlikely to increase significantly as a consequence of any consent and that the results of the survey show there is adequate customer parking to accommodate demand during the busiest periods.

8.20 The business has been in operation since 2011. There is not a drastic difference between the

manner in which the use has operated in previous years and the way it operates now in the Officers view. Officers are not aware of any significant parking capacity issues having been apparent at the site. No objections have been received from neighbouring businesses or users of the site despite the publicity of the application via site notice and via the Tamworth Herald. The Highway Authority, although noting there was some exceedance of the formal capacity available, raise no objections to the proposals provided the outside storage is restricted to its current extent. Taking into account the above, no significant reported issues and the surveys pointing to no significant on street parking alongside the other positive aspects associated with the ongoing use as considered above, the application is judged to accord with Tamworth Local Plan Policy TRA3.

9 Conclusion 9.1 The application seeks retrospective change of use of the site to a retail warehouse club (sui

generis). The application is accompanied by a sequential assessment with specific criteria in relation to the applicant’s minimum requirements. Tamworth Borough Council has commissioned an independent review of the sequential assessment. This report considers that the assumptions underpinning the reasoning why the applicant could not occupy more centrally located premises is sound and that the sequential assessment submitted is reflective of the available premises which could reasonably be considered. The report considers the sequential assessment is passed. Regarding retail impacts, the Council commissioned assessment adopts a higher turnover figure for the proposed retail warehouse club than utilised by the applicant for sensitivity purposes. This assessment concludes that the proposed development would have a limited impact upon the vitality and viability of existing centres. As such the proposal is judged to accord with NPPF para 24 and 26 and Emerging Local Plan Policy EC1.

9.2 Officers accept that the evidence provided demonstrates there are no more suitable locations

outside of the employment areas for a business of this type, that the site does possess good accessibility by various means of transport and that there will not be a negative impact on the vitality, viability and function of the employment area particularly in relation to customer parking. To the contrary there is some concern about the loss of an employment unit which could potentially be used for a more traditional employment use. However the employment aspects of the proposals must also be given weight in this assessment. The Economic Development Officer considers that the level of job creation for a use of this nature (stated as 37 FTE jobs) is high for the amount of space taken and a warehouse or similar use would be unlikely to provide such a level of employment. Moreover, the proposal does secure economic development in an accessible, sustainable location within the town and within a similarly commercial context than traditional employment areas. The use does not impact the town or local centre in a significant way and in reality, a building of this nature is the only viable way of accommodating a retail warehouse of this type. These factors weigh considerably in favour of the proposal despite the conflict apparent regarding the loss of the space from the wider portfolio of employment sites. In the Officers view these matters outweigh the identified conflict with criterion a) of eLP Policy EC7.

9.3 The Council sought further information from the applicant to consider the implications of the

proposal in terms of parking and employment land implications. In doing so it is considered the Council acted in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF.

Conditions / Reasons

1. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with the application form,

supporting statement and Drawing Number SK01 Rev A stamp dated as received on 23 September 2015 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To define the approval.

2 The external display and sales area hereby permitted shall in perpetuity be confined to that shown on Drawing No. SK01 Rev A and shall be no larger than 348sqm. All customer parking on the site shall be retained free from impediment to its designated use for the life of the development.

Reason: In the interests of ensuring the sales area of the site is confined to that proposed and that adequate parking is provided for the life of the development in accordance with Tamworth Local Plan Policy TRA3 and Emerging Local Plan Policy EC1.