COMMITTEE REPORT Planning Services
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Planning Services
COMMITTEE REPORT
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
APPLICATION DETAILS
APPLICATION NO: 3/2011/0208
FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: Retail development
NAME OF APPLICANT:
Metric Property
ADDRESS:
Former Focus Site
ELECTORAL DIVISION:
CASE OFFICER: Chris Baxter, Senior Planning Officer
Tel: 03000261393
chris.baxter@durham.gov.uk
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS
The Site
1. The application site comprises of the former Focus DIY store located at Tindale
Crescent in Bishop Auckland. The former Focus building still remains on the site
which is in a dilapidated state. There has been significant development around the
site in recent years, with Tescos store situated immediately to the west and the
Sainsbury’s store to the south. To the north east of the site is a car wash business
with a Lidl store located beyond. A McDonalds restaurant is currently under
construction located to the east with industrial units situated beyond. The A688
highway runs along the south boundary of the site. The application site is located
within an area allocated as Bulky Goods Retailing under Proposal I8 of the Wear
Valley District Local Plan amended by Saved and Expired Policies September 2007.
The proposal
2. Planning permission is sought for retail development which includes the demolition of
the existing building and the erection of two terraces of retail units, along with car
parking, landscaping and associated works. Six retail units are proposed, with four
units to the rear of the site and two units along the front of the site. The overall retail
floor space proposed is 6852 sqm. Existing accesses are to be utilised with the east
access to be used as public entrance into the car park and the west access to be
used for service deliveries.3. The application is reported to the County Planning Committee as it represents a
major retail scheme of strategic importance.
PLANNING HISTORY
4. Planning permission was granted in 1984 for the site to be utilised as a DIY outlet,
garden and leisure centre. This 1984 permission was approved with a condition
restricting the use of the store and not allowing the sales of foodstuffs; electrical
appliances; clothing or drapery goods; and furniture (other than garden furniture and
flat pack furniture). Several applications have been submitted since 1984 which
altered the condition restricting the use of the site. The last application was
submitted and approved in 1997 and was to vary the planning condition. The site
presently has a lawfull planning use for retail warehousing with a condition which
states that the site shall be used for the retail warehousing of non-food bulky
household goods, DIY and garden products, pet animals and ancillary pet products
and specifically excludes electrical appliances (other than cookers, fridges, freezers,
washing machines, tumble dryers, dishwashers), clothing or drapery goods and soft
furnishings.
PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL POLICY:
5. Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) sets out
the Government’s overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable
development through the planning system.
6. Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4) sets
out the Government’s comprehensive policy framework for planning for sustainable
economic development in urban and rural areas.
7. Planning for Town Centres: Practice guidance on need, impact and the sequential
approach is intended to support the implementation of town centre policies set out in
PPS4. It is aimed at helping those involved in preparing or reviewing need, impact
and sequential site assessments.
8. Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13) sets out objectives to integrate
planning and transport at the national, regional, strategic and local level and to
promote more sustainable transport choices both for carrying people and for moving
freight.
9. Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (PPS22) sets out the
Government's policies for renewable energy, which planning authorities should have
regard to when taking planning decisions.
The Government has recently published its draft National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF), which seeks to provide a consolidated and shorter framework of national
policies covering much the same issues as currently found in Planning Policy
Statements and Guidance Notes. Since the document is only in draft at this time, it
can be afforded very little weight; however, it is of note that the thrust of the
Governments objectives insofar as they relate to business and economic
development seek in helping to achieve sustainable development, to promote the
vitality and viability of town centres, and meet the needs of consumers for high quality
and accessible retail services.REGIONAL PLAN POLICY:
10. The North East of England Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS) July 2008,
sets out the broad spatial development strategy for the North East region for the
period of 2004 to 2021. The RSS sets out the region's housing provision and the
priorities in economic development, retail growth, transport investment, the
environment, minerals and waste treatment and disposal. Some policies have an end
date of 2021 but the overall vision, strategy, and general policies will guide
development over a longer timescale. The overall objective for minerals policy in the
Region, as set out in RSS, is to ensure the prudent use of the Region’s indigenous
natural resources in line with sustainable development objectives.
11. In July 2010 the Local Government Secretary signalled his intention to revoke
Regional Spatial Strategies with immediate effect, and that this was to be treated as a
material consideration in subsequent planning decisions. This position was
challenged through the courts and the Court of Appeal ruled in May 2011 that the
proposed abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies can be regarded as a material
consideration when deciding planning applications. The following policies are
considered relevant.
12. Policy 2 – (Sustainable Development) seeks to embed sustainable criteria through out
the development process and influence the way in which people take about where to
live and work; how to travel; how to dispose of waste; and how to use energy and
other natural resources efficiently.
13. Policy 3 – (Climate Change) The RSS recognises that climate change is the single
most significant issue that affects global society in the 21st century. Policy 3 will seek
to ensure that the location of development, encouraging sustainable forms of
transport, encouraging and supporting use of renewable energy sources, and waste
management all aids in the reduction of climate change.
14. Policy 7 (Connectivity and Accessibility) seeks to promote the need to reduce the
impact of travel demand particularly by promoting public transport, travel plans,
cycling and walking, as well as the need to reduce long distance travel, particularly by
private car, by focusing development in urban areas with good access to public
transport.
15. Policy 8 (Protecting and Enhancing the Environment) seeks to promote measures
such as high quality design in all development and redevelopment and promoting
development that is sympathetic to its surroundings.
16. Policy 13 – (Brownfield Mixed-use Locations) aims to deliver sustainable economic
activity and provide development and investment opportunities that will ensure the
long-term development and regeneration of the North East.
17. Policy 24 (Delivering Sustainable Communities) refers to the need to concentrate the
majority of the Region’s new development within the defined urban areas, and the
need to utilise previously developed land wherever possible.
18. Policy 25 – (Urban and Rural Centres) supports the provision of locally available
services and facilities, strengthening the role of existing centres as the focus for jobs;
retail; commerce; entertainment; leisure; culture and places of worship; recreation;
education; health; business; public services and other high trip generating uses
commensurate with their scale and function, particularly around key strategic and
local public transport hubs.19. Policy 38 (Sustainable Construction) sets out that in advance of locally set targets,
major developments should secure at least 10% of their energy supply from
decentralised or low-carbon sources.
20. Policy 39 – (Renewable Energy Generation) seeks to generate at least 10% of the
Region’s consumption of electricity from renewable sources within the Region by
2010 and aspire to further increase renewable electricity generation to achieve 20%
of regional consumption by 2020.
21. Policy 54 – (Parking and Travel Plans) seeks to support the delivery of improved
public transport throughout the Region, the promotion of travel plans and the
provision and pricing of parking will be essential. Key elements include the marketing
of public transport, cycling, walking and car sharing in trying to influence travel
behaviour.
LOCAL PLAN POLICY:
22. The following saved policies of the Wear Valley District Local Plan (WVLP) are
relevant in the determination of this application:
23. Policy GD1: General Design Criteria states that all new development and
redevelopment within the District should be designed and built to a high standard and
should contribute to the quality and built environment of the surrounding area.
24. Policy S1: Town Centres states that the Council will seek to maintain and protect the
town centres of bishop Auckland and Crook as the major retailing centres in the
District. Proposals for retail developments which undermine the vitality and viability of
these town centres will be resisted.
25. Proposal I8: Bulky Goods Retailing states that permission will be granted for the
development of bulky goods retailing in Tindale Crescent area.
26. Policy T1: Highways – General Policy states that all developments which generate
additional traffic will be required to fulfill policy GD1 and:
i) provide adequate access to the developments;
ii) not exceed the capacity of the local road network; and
iii) be capable of access by public transport networks.
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY:
27. The Council’s Sustainable Communities Strategy identifies the economy as the top
priority for County Durham. This is designed to achieve an ‘Altogether Wealthier’
County Durham.Vibrant and Successful Town Centres’ is one of the Primary
objectives of the Council’s Sustainable Communities Strategy and the requirement to
improve wealth within the County. There are serious concerns that this development
would have a detrimental impact on Bishop Auckland.
The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant in the Development Plan the full text, criteria,
and justifications of each may be accessed at: -
National Planning Policy http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/
Regional Planning Policy http://www.gos.gov.uk/gone/planning/regional_planning/
Local Planning Policy http://www.durham.gov.uk/CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES
STATUTORY RESPONSES:
28. Environment Agency: No objections subject to the imposition of a condition relating
to pollution prevention.
29. Northumbrian Water: No objections.
30. Coal Authority: Recommends that a condition is imposed, should planning
permission be granted, requiring site investigation works to be undertaken prior to
the development commencing.
31. One North East: Subject to the satisfactory resolution of PPS4 considerations and all
other policy, environmental and highway issues, and in the event that the local
planning authority is minded to approve the application, no objections are raised to
the proposal.
32. Highways Authority: Satisfied that the surrounding highway network can
accommodate the additional traffic as compared to the historical use on the site.
Parking provision is acceptable and cycle parking is shown at the front elevation of
the main terrace of units.
INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES:
33. Spatial Policy Team: Policy EC17 of PPS4 is quite clear that planning applications for
main town centres uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with
an up to date development plan should be refused planning permission where:
- The applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the
sequential approach (Policy EC15 of PPS4); or
- There is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts
in terms of any one of impacts set out in Policies EC10.2 and 16.1 (the impact
assessment), taking account of the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions,
developments under construction and completed developments.
34. Landscape: No objections to the removal of trees at the sides and back of the site, as
well as the proposed tree protection for the trees to be retained. Concerns are raised
at the proposal for the removal of the sycamore tree to the front of the site.
35. Low Carbon Officer: The objective to build to BREEAM ‘very good’ standard is fully
supported. It is noted that renewable energy technologies do not form any part of the
submission thus far. The applicant will need to consider how they plan to meet the
10% requirement.
PUBLIC RESPONSES:
36. The application has been advertised on site, in the press and the closest residents
notified in writing.37. A letter of support has been received for the proposed development from the St.
Helens Residents Association. The letter of support states that the Association stands
firm in its unanimous support for this development coming to St Helen Auckland, as
its on going petition in support proves. They believe it will greatly enhance their retail
choices and bring much needed jobs to the village. The development will fit in
seamlessly with existing development on the neighbouring sites and will assuage the
derelict ruin that has blighted the village for a lot of years namely the old Focus
building. As the site is already designated as retail they believe there can be no
objection to using the site for this purpose as this application proposes to do.A petition
has been received in support of the proposed development.
38. A petition objecting to the proposed development on the grounds that the it will be to
the detriment of businesses within Bishop Auckland town centre has also been
recieved.
39. An objection has also been received from Ravenhill Estates Limited who are the
owners of the Newgate Shopping Centre situated within the town centre of Bishop
Auckland. Their objections are:
- The application site is an out of centre location and inappropriate and unallocated in
policy terms for open A1 retail development;
- The application fails to appraise the Newgate Centre Site in its assessment of suitable
sequential sites and account for this proposal in its impact assessment;
- The application therefore fails to address the key PPS4 policies of EC14, EC15 and
EC16;
- The Newgate Centre site is the most central development site in Bishop Auckland and
presents the only significant regeneration opportunity for the town centre;
- The Newgate Centre site is the most readily accessible location by alternative forms of
transport and will incorporate the provision of a new bus station, enhancing the
accessibility of this town centre development;
- The Newgate Centre site will enable customers to undertake linked trips and will serve
to reinforce the vitality and viability of the existing centre;
- In accordance with PPS4 policy guidance, the Newgate Centre site is available. There
are no insurmountable legal or ownership problems remaining in the delivery of this
site. Ravenhill are in the process of bringing this site forward for town centre retail
development of comparable scale and size to the application and have ongoing
dialogue with Durham County Council officers.
- The Newgate Centre site is suitable. It is within the primary shopping allocation. There
are no policy restrictions, physical problems or limitations, potential negative impacts or
negative environmental conditions that could limit its delivery;
- The Newgate Centre is viable. Market factors, cost factors and delivery factors have
been taken into consideration and this site is viable for imminent delivery;
- Should the application be permitted this will have a significant negative impact on the
delivery of the Newgate Centre site. In line with the Durham County Council Retail and
Town Centre Uses Study 2009, we do not consider there to be any quantitative or
qualitative need for new comparison retail provision outside of the town centre.APPLICANTS STATEMENT
40. Metric Properties working with Argon Properties started discussions with the Local
Authority nearly 18 months ago with regard to the long term investment to bring
forward the redevelopment of the former Focus Unit and to continue the regeneration
that is taking place in West Auckland. Through the application process there has
been an ongoing dialogue between the applicant’s representatives and the County
Council.
41. The Council’s Retail Study demonstrates that there is currently significant expenditure
leakage from the Bishop Auckland catchment area to centres further afield particularly
in relation to comparison goods expenditure. An analysis of the expenditure patterns
specifically in relation to clothing expenditure reveals that 46.5% of the available
expenditure arising within the zone is spent in centres beyond County Durham, with
Bishop Auckland only retaining 33.3% of the expenditure. The Retail Study
recognises the important role that clothing retailers play in determining the choice of
shopping destination, and the current lack of such representation in Bishop Auckland.
In order for Bishop Auckland to retain its market share, the Retail Study notes that this
type of retailer needs to be attracted to the town.
42. The proposed development will provide larger floorplate units, a critical mass of
comparable occupiers and convenience to customers which are the some of the key
considerations of national multiple retailers when determining where to open new
stores. Through discussions with potential occupiers, in-house knowledge and having
taken specialist agency advice there are no sites in Bishop Auckland town centre that
could deliver units which would be suitable to meet national multiple occupier
requirements.
43. The low level of expenditure retained by Bishop Auckland means that even with
Metric’s proposed development there will still be significant expenditure to support
additional retail floorspace in the town centre should that come forward. We disagree
that there will be an adverse impact from the development of these proposals on the
town centre.
44. The site currently does not provide any employment. The proposed development will
provide approximately 91 jobs as a mixture of both full and part time. In addition jobs
will be created during construction as well as the ongoing servicing of the
development. The provision of a range of accessible jobs in this location would assist
in reducing the levels of unemployment in the immediate area.
45. The proposed development will bring about the regeneration of the existing retail unit
which has been vacant for approximately four years, is derelict in appearance and
causing increasing concern to police, fire brigade and residents of the area.
46. The proposed development will ensure the continued attraction of Bishop Auckland as
a retail destination helping it to compete with other centres further afield.
47. The proposed development is supported by Local Councillors and residents and
comprises a significant investment in the regeneration and redevelopment of a site
which currently detracts from the appearance of the surrounding area.
The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text
is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at the Crook Area Planning
Team. Officer analysis of the issues raised and discussion as to their relevance to the proposal and
recommendation made is contained below.PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT
48. Having regard to the requirements of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004 relevant guidance, development plan policies and all material
planning considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the
main planning issues in this instance relate to the retail assessment (including
sequential assessment, impact assessment and planned investment), highway
issues and impact on the surrounding area.
Retail assessment
49. Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4) is
the most up to date and relevant guidance for retail and town centre uses. The
Council has taken specialist advice from retail planning consultants, GVA Grimley, in
relation to retail issues and PPS4 which is embodied in this report.
50. It has been identified that the main assessments relating to PPS4 requirements which
are to considered in this proposal are whether there are any sequentially preferable
sites for retail development; whether the proposal would impact upon the vitality and
viability of Bishop Auckland town centre; and whether the proposal would impact on
any future planned investment.
Sequential assessment
51. PPS4 policy EC15 sets out the sequential criteria which should be used to assess the
application, with policy 17.1a confirming that proposals should be refused if the
applicant has not demonstrated sequential compliance. The PPS4 practice guidance
provides further detail on the sequential approach, confirming that it is for the decision
maker to judge the extent to which an applicant has demonstrated sequential
compliance with the sequential approach and what constitutes a significant adverse
impact based on the circumstances of each case. Policy EC15.1 confirms that in
considering sequential assessments, local planning authorities should:
a) Ensure that sites are assessed for their availability, suitability and viability;
b) Ensure that all in centre options have been thoroughly assessed before less central
sites are considered;
c) Ensure that where it has been demonstrated that there are no town centre sites to
accommodate a proposed development, preference is given to edge-of-centre
locations which are well connected to the centre by means of easy pedestrian access;
d) Ensure that in considering sites in or on edge of existing centres, developers and
operators have demonstrated flexibility in terms of:
i) Scale; reducing the floor space of their development;
ii) Format; more innovative site layouts and store configurations such as multi
storey developments with smaller footprints;
iii) Car parking provision; reduced or reconfigured car parking areas; and
iv) Disaggregation; the scope for disaggregating specific parts of a retail
development, including those which are part of a group of retail units, onto
separate, sequentially preferable sites.52. The applicants have submitted as part of their retail assessment supporting evidence
with regards to sequential compliance. This assessed a number of sites within the
Bishop Auckland area as well sites in Spennymoor and Newton Aycliffe. Whilst
Officer’s agree that most of the sites assessed through the applicant’s sequential
assessment can be discounted, there are two sites within Bishop Auckland town
centre which are discounted by the applicant but which Officer’s consider are sites
that are sequentially preferable to the proposed development site. These two sites are
the North Bondgate site and the Newgate Centre/bus station site. Both of these sites
are located within the town centre for Bishop Auckland where Local Plan policies
specifically direct retail development.
53. In terms of the North Bondgate site, the applicant has indicated that the site is not
available, suitable or viable for the proposed development. Officers’ views are that the
site is available for development; as the site is currently cleared and there are no key
policy pre-conditions in place to restrict bringing forward the site. The Council and
developers Gentoo, who both own parts of the site, are currently working in
partnership to bring forward a redevelopment package for the site. The North
Bondgate site was previously subject to planning permission for a mixed use
development including 6,400sqm of Class A1 retail floor space. PPS4 practice
guidance is particularly clear in requiring assessment of the longer term implications
on town centres from development occurring in edge or out of centre locations. There
is no robust evidence that a revised retail led scheme for the site could not come
forward in the short term. The guidance is clear that it is not appropriate for an
applicant to dismiss a more central location on the basis that it is not available to the
developer/retailer in question.
54. In relation to the applicant’s claim that the North Bondgate site is not suitable due to
significant development costs, there is no robust evidence to support this conclusion.
It is clear from the existence of planning permission for the previous scheme; there
are no insurmountable site specific problems that could not be satisfactorily
addressed. PPS4 practice guidance, in relation to suitability, states that ‘those
promoting less central sites should not discount more central locations as unsuitable
unless they are clearly able to demonstrate that a development on the site in question
would be unable to satisfactorily meet the need/demand their proposal is intended to
serve’. The now lapsed planning permission for the North Bondgate site provided 5no.
retail units ranging from 955sqm to 1,432 sqm in size. It is therefore clear that the site
is suitable for the proposed development and could accommodate the units proposed
within the applicant’s current scheme.
55. In terms of viability of the North Bondgate site, whilst it is accepted that the residential
element of the original approved scheme may be marginal given the current economic
climate, there is no robust evidence that a predominantly retail scheme would not be
viable. PPS4 practice guidance acknowledges that it would be inappropriate to reject
a more central opportunity as being unviable without allowing a reasonable period of
time to test whether a viable scheme could come forward. It is considered that the
development of a comparable retail scheme in an out of centre location would likely to
further reduce the viability of any scheme coming forward on the North Bondgate site.
It is Officers’ views that a fully retail scheme on this site needs to be allowed a
reasonable period of time to come forward.56. The applicant has also indicated that the Newgate Centre/bus station site is not
available, suitable or viable for the proposed development. The owners of the
Newgate Centre are currently working up a scheme to redevelop the Newgate Centre,
and the Council are in detailed discussions in relation to the proposal to reconfigure
the bus station. The developers have also undertaken community consultation
functions presenting proposed development layout plans of approximately 9,000sqm
retail floor space. It is Officers’ opinions that the Newgate Centre/bus station site
represents available development opportunities, which are available within a
reasonable period of time.
57. The applicant’s have also implied that town centre locations are not suitable or
attractive to potential retail operators as it restricts retailers from having evening trade
hours. PPS4 practice guidance clarifies that those less central sites should not
discount more central locations as unsuitable unless they are able to clearly
demonstrate that a development on the site in question would be unable to
satisfactorily meet the need/demand their proposal is intending to serve. Sites should
not be rejected based on self imposed requirements or preferences of a single
operator, or without demonstrating a serious attempt to overcome any identified
constraints. In addition to this, a key finding of the Council’s Retail and Town Centre
Uses Study was that there should be a focus on promoting the diversification of the
evening economy within the town centre, concentrating around Fore Bondgate, North
Bondgate and the Market Place. If retailers were to open late it would compliment the
leisure offer and contribute towards the goal of achieving a vibrant and healthy town
centre.
58. In terms of the viability for a retail development on the Newgate Centre/bus station
site, the same issues apply as with the North Bondgate site. PPS4 practice guidance
advises that it would be inappropriate to discount a town centre site as being unviable
without allowing a reasonable period of time to test whether a viable scheme could
come forward. Officers’ consider that the development of a comparable retail scheme
to that proposed in this application could be accommodated on the Newgate
Centre/bus station site; and therefore a retail scheme on this site also needs to be
allowed a reasonable period of time to come forward.
59. When regard is made to flexibility considerations and the ability to disaggregate
various elements of the proposed development, it is considered that the applicant
currently has not complied with PPS4 and its practice guidance which states that ‘it is
critical that applicants carry out a thorough assessment to explore alternative options,
and that if more central opportunities are rejected, it is for sound reasons which are
clearly explained and justified. As the onus rests on the applicant to demonstrate
compliance with sequential approach, failure to undertake such an assessment would
constitute a reason for refusal’.
It appears clear to Officers’ that the North Bondgate and the Newgate Centre/bus
station sites are both available, suitable and viable; and a development of a
comparable retail scheme to that proposed could be accommodated on either of
these sites. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in contravention
of policy EC17.1 a of Planning Policy Statement 4.Impact assessment
60. The applicant’s have as part of the retail assessment submitted an impact
assessment. This assessment states that the proposed development will enhance the
range and quality of the comparison and convenience offer within the Bishop
Auckland area. The assessment further details that the attraction of multiple national
retailers who are not currently represented within the town centre will enhance the
retail provision within the Bishop Auckland area.
61. The objective of an impact assessment is to measure and where possible quantify the
impacts of proposals. This can be used to gauge their potential impact on the
development plan strategy, their effects on planned new investment and their overall
consequences on the vitality and viability of existing town centres. PPS4 states that
‘significant levels of trade diversion from the centre can seriously undermine its vitality
and viability resulting in reduced footfall, increased vacancies and a more down
market offer> impacts may not be widespread or necessarily significant in
quantitative terms but the loss of a key town centre use, or loss of demand from a
prospective operator need to reinforce the existing offer may be highly significant in
some centres’.
62. The applicant’s impact assessment is heavily predicated on the basis that the
proposed scheme will attract national retailers to Bishop Auckland. There is no
evidence however of potential end users and if key operators such as Marks and
Spencers and Burtons for example are relocated from existing premises to the out of
centre site then the potential impact on the town centre would be significant in terms
of loss of footfall, increased vacancies and the loss of a key centre anchor.
63. The applicant fails to consider the potential impacts of a comparison retail scheme on
footfall and vacancies, in their impact assessment. There is a quantum of existing out
of centre retail development around the Tindale Crescent area (Tesco’s and
Sainsbury’s for example) and there is potential that local residents could undertake
linked trips at this out of centre location rather than within the town centre.
64. Without any clarification on the potential end users of the proposed site it is difficult to
be certain on the impact the proposed development would have on the vitality and
viability of Bishop Auckland town centre. Whilst the applicants have confirmed that the
site is targeted at national retailers not currently present in Bishop Auckland, there is
no certainty that existing national retailers within the town centre (i.e. Marks and
Spencers and Burtons) would not simply relocate to the proposed development. It is
considered that the impact of any potential relocation of existing retailers from the
town centre would have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of
Bishop Auckland town centre in conflict with policy S1 of the Wear Valley District
Local Plan and policy EC17.1 b of Planning Policy Statement 4.
Planned investment
65. In terms of the effect on planned investment, PPS4 practice guidance advises that
where the local planning authority or the private sector has identified town centre
development opportunities and is actively progressing them, it will be highly material
to assess the effect of proposals on that investment. Key considerations will include;
the stage at which the proposal has reached; the degree to which key developer
interest is committed; and the level and significance of predicted direct and indirect
impacts.66. It has been noted previously that developers for both the North Bondgate site and the
Newgate Centre/bus station site have had discussions with the Council regarding
future development of the sites. In particular the owners for the Newgate Centre have
had public consultation exhibitions showing proposals for retail development of their
site. Retail schemes for the North Bondgate site, the Newgate Centre/bus station site
and the proposed retail scheme in this proposal will all be competing for the same
market opportunity and it is Officers’ views that permitting an out of centre proposal
could potentially have a negative impact on operator demand and the viability and
deliverability in the town centre.
67. It is also noted that there is wider planned investment within the town centre in
relation to tourism development at Auckland Castle and the Park. One of Bishop
Auckland’s main attractions is Auckland Castle and the Park. The long term
ownership and use of Auckland Castle is currently being reviewed by its owners, the
Church Commissioners. A wealthy benefactor has sought to acquire the Zurbaran
Paintings collection for the nation and is seeking to establish full public access at the
Castle to view the paintings. There are also ongoing discussions with the National
Trust who have expressed an interest in running or acquiring the property and the
National Gallery who would like to use part of the Castle as a gallery. Therefore, there
exists at present a unique and intra-generational opportunity to make a significant
change to the use of Auckland Castle and Parkland and the wider tourism offer of
Bishop Auckland. The opportunity for linked trips between Auckland Castle and the
town centre will be vitally important to the ongoing regeneration of Bishop Auckland.
Highway issues
68. The County Highways team have confirmed that the surrounding highway network
can accommodate the additional generated traffic from the proposed development.
The parking provision is also considered acceptable for the level of development
proposed. The proposed layout of the development has also been amended to
provide a bus lay by and cycle route along the front of the site, which is in line with
recommendations from the County Public Transport team. It is considered that the
proposed development is acceptable in highway terms and would not compromise the
aims of policy T1 of the Local Plan.
Impact on surrounding area
69. The adjacent neighbouring buildings are all commercial units and the proposed
development would not adversely impact upon the occupiers of these neighbouring
buildings. A landscape scheme has been submitted with the application. The County’s
landscape architect generally accepts the landscape proposals and it is considered
that the proposed landscaping would be keeping with the landscaping visible within
the surrounding area.
70. The design of the proposed retail units are of a modern design with a mix of glazing
and metallic cladding. Canopy design is proposed along the front of the main retail
terrace units. Generally the design of the retail building would provide a modern
appearance and would not appear out of keeping within the street scene. Retail units
A to D are positioned in a terrace layout to the rear of the property, whilst smaller
retail units E and F are located to the front of the site. Given the orientation of units E
and F, the rear of these building faces onto the main highway. This configuration is
unusual as retail units E and F have no frontage onto the main public highway. On
balance it is considered that the proposed design and layout would not compromise
the visual appearance of the immediate surrounding area and would be compliant
with policy GD1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan.CONCLUSION
71. The North Bondgate and Newgate Centre/bus station site are both located within the
defined town centre for Bishop Auckland. Both these sites are considered to be
available, suitable and viable; and a development of a comparable retail scheme to
that proposed could be accommodated on either of these sites. The North Bondgate
and Newgate Centre/bus station sites are considered to be both sequentially
preferable to the proposed site in this application. The proposed development is
therefore considered unacceptable and is contrary to policies set out in Planning
Policy Statement 4.
72. Without any clarification on potential operators for the proposed site, it is difficult to
assess fully the impact the proposed development would have on the vitality and
viability of the town centre. It is considered that should existing retailers from the town
centre relocate to the proposed site, then this would have a significant adverse impact
on the vitality and viability of Bishop Auckland town centre.
73. Retail schemes for the North Bondgate site, Newgate Centre/bus station site and the
proposed retail scheme in this proposal will all be competing for the same market
opportunity and it is Officers’ views that permitting an out of centre proposal could
have an adverse impact on planned investment and could potentially have a negative
impact on operator demand or the viability and deliverability in the town centre.
74. The surrounding highway network would be able to accommodate the additional
generated traffic from the proposed development. The parking provision provided
within the scheme is acceptable.
75. Neighbouring buildings would not be adversely impacted by the proposed
development. Generally the design and layout of the proposed development would be
acceptable and not be out of keeping with the surrounding street scene.
RECOMMENDATION
That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The site is situated outside the established town centre of Bishop Auckland. It is
considered that sequentially preferable sites exist that would be more appropriate
and as such the proposed development would fail to comply with the policy EC17.1a
of Planning Policy Statement 4.
2. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability
of Bishop Auckland town centre and would be contrary to policy S1 of the Wear
Valley District Local Plan amended by Saved and Expired Policies September 2007
and policy EC17.1 b of Planning Policy Statement 4.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
− Submitted Application Forms and Plans
− Design and Access Statement
− Wear Valley District Local Plan amended by Saved and Expired Policies September
2007
− Planning Policy Statements/Guidance, PPS1, PPS4, PPS25, PPG13
− Consultation Responses
− Public Consultation Responses
− Report from GVA GrimleyYou can also read
