agenda item no 5 title: update report on planning …

Agenda Item 5 - page 1

AGENDA ITEM NO 5TITLE: UPDATE REPORT ON PLANNING APPROVAL E/12/00247/OUM –PROPOSED FOODSTORE (A1), TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING,SERVICING AREA AND PETROL FILLING STATION, A COMMUNITY STYLEPUBL/RESTAURANT (A3,A4) ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND HIGHWAYENGINEERING WORKS. LAND PARCEL EAST OF 2 THE SHADE SOHAMCAMBRIDGESHIRE

Committee: Planning Committee

Date: 2nd October 2013

Author: Sue Wheatley, Principal Development Management Officer[N113]

1.0 ISSUE

1.1 At Planning Committee on 15 May 2013, Members determined thatapplication E/12/00247/OUM, for a supermarket in Soham, be approved inprinciple subject to the following matters being addressed by the Head ofPlanning and Sustainable Development and reported back to the PlanningCommittee for final agreement:

Appropriate conditions Section 106 contributions Revisions to the indicative plans Information on the name of the store operator Consideration of possible access to the neighbouring land

1.2 An Update Report was presented to Planning Committee on 7 August 2013.

1.3 A copy of the previous reports are attached for Members information.

1.4 This application may be viewed online at:http://anitepa.eastcambs.gov.uk/AniteIM.WebSearch/Results.aspx

2.0 RECOMMENDATION(S)

2.1 It is recommended that:

As Members resolved to approve the application in principle, they now resolveto approve the detailed wording of the conditions and the Heads of Terms forthe S106 Agreement and delegate to the Head of Planning and SustainableDevelopment the issuing of the permission once the S106 Agreement hasbeen signed.

http://anitepa.eastcambs.gov.uk/AniteIM.WebSearch/Results.aspx


3.0 BACKGROUND/OPTIONS

3.1 Conditions: The attached draft conditions have been agreed with theapplicant.

3.2 S106 Agreement: The previous reports set out the issues in relation to thepublic transport and town centre improvement contributions. Discussionshave been ongoing with the applicant and the Local Highway Authority.

3.3 The Committee is reminded that S106 contributions need to meet thefollowing tests:

Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms Directly related to the development Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

3.4 Legal services have advised that Soham Town Council’s request for acontribution towards the Pavillion would not meet these tests. At the lastmeeting the Committee made it clear that it did not favour the use of the towncentre contribution for funding either a town centre manager/a consultant toproduce a marketing strategy and that the contribution would be best spentupon physical works.

3.5 The Local Highway Authority have suggested that because of the numbers ofpeople likely to access the supermarket by public transport it would not beviable to provide a dedicated service 5 days a week and have suggested acompromise that they think could work. A 3 day a week service betweenIsleham, Soham and Wicken. (Fordham is served by the No12 bus) They areproducing a draft timetable and will seek quotes from bus operators. Theyhave however advised that the use of the service should be carefullymonitored and that if is found not to be adequately used that the contributionbe used instead for other public transport measures, including the Soham andEly Dial a Ride.

3.6 The S106 Agreement will also need to require the provision of a Travel Plan,provide for access to the adjacent land and management of the car park.

3.7 It is therefore recommended that the Heads of Terms for the S106Agreement include the following:

Public Transport Contribution – A sum of £150,000 for the provision of adedicated service between Isleham, Soham and Wicken 3 days a week. Theuse of this service be monitored and that if it is found not to be adequatelyused(the LHA to advise on what would be a reasonable level of usage) thenthe money to be used for other public transport purposes including acontribution towards the Ely and Soham Dial a Ride service.


Town Centre Contribution – A sum of £100,000 for town centreimprovements. The fund to be administered by ECDC, with advice fromSoham Town Council and Soham Traders Association.

The fund to be used for items from the following list:

Town centre environmental improvements, including improvements to towncentre car parks;Town Centre Shop Improvement Scheme;Events;Business support.

Travel Plan – The Local Highway Authority has recommended that the S106Agreement should require the provision of a Travel Plan, the monitoring ofthis plan and the appointment of a Travel Plan Coordinator.

Access to adjacent Land – Legal services have advised that to ensure thataccess to the adjacent land is provided and available for use at all times acondition would not be appropriate. They have therefore recommended thatwording be included within the S106 Agreement in relation to this.

Management of Car Park- The Local Highway Authority requested this andthe applicant has confirmed their agreement to this being included within theS106 Agreement.

3.8 Revisions to indicative layout: The applicant has been requested to amendthe indicative layout but has advised that this request is unreasonable. Theapplicant’s view is that as this is an outline application the layout of thescheme falls to be considered at reserved matters stage. They have alsoadvised that as part of the process of designing the scheme the retention ofthe north south by-way was explored in depth and it was concluded that inorder to retain it in its current location there would have to be a vehicularcrossing of it, which in their view, would create a significant safety issue.They draw attention to the lack of objection from the rights of way team at theCounty Council to this re-routing. They also highlight that in addition to itbeing possible to consider the re-routing at reserved matters stage itsdiversion would need to be progressed through a Section 247 application tothe Department of Transport.

The use of a condition advising that the illustrative details are unacceptablehas been explored however the conclusion that has been reached is that, aslayout is a reserved matter, at the most an informative can be imposed. Thisis included at the end of the recommended conditions.

However, whilst layout is reserved for later consideration, the applicant hasrequested that access be considered at this stage. Access is defined, inrelation to reserved matters as, the accessibility to and within the site forvehicles, cycles and pedestrians in terms of the positioning and treatment of


the access and circulation routes and how these fit into the surroundingaccess network. The applicant has therefore, at the request of officers,confirmed that access other than vehicular access is to be considered atreserved matters stage. Condition 1 therefore makes this clear and a furthercondition is recommended to require the improvement of this access.

3.9 The store operator: The applicant is not yet able to confirm the storeoperator. It was however reported to the August meeting of the Committeethat this is not a material planning consideration.

3.10 Access to adjacent land: to be included within S106 Agreement.

4.0 ARGUMENTS/CONCLUSIONS

4.1 In conclusion it is recommended that:

As Members resolved to approve the application in principle, they now resolveto approve the detailed wording of the conditions and the Heads of Terms forthe S106 Agreement and delegate to the Head of Planning and SustainableDevelopment the issuing of the permission once the S106 Agreement hasbeen signed.

5.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS/EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5.1 There are no additional financial implications arising from this report.(*add infinancial implications or state that ‘there are no additional financialimplications arising from this report’)

5.2 Equality Impact Assessment (INRA) not required

6.0 APPENDICES

6.1 Appendix 1 – Conditions and Informatives.6.2 Appendix 2 – Copy of Planning Committee Report (7th August 2013).6.3 Appendix 3 – Copy of Planning Committee Report (15th May 2013).

Background Documents

Application file –E/12/00247/OUM

LocationRoom 11A

Contact Officer

Sue WheatleyPrincipal Development ManagementOfficer(01353) 616229E-mail:[email protected]

Appendix 1

12/00247/OUM Proposed Foodstore (A1), together with associated parking,servicing area and petrol filling station, a community style pub/restaurant (A3,A4)associated car parking - Recommended Conditions and Informative

Conditions

1 Approval of the details of the layout, scale, appearance, non-vehicular access andlandscaping; (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the LocalPlanning Authority in writing before any development is commenced, and shall becarried out as approved. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be madewithin 3 years of the date of this permission.

1 Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, asamended.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within 2 years of the date ofthe approval of the last of the reserved matters.

2 Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, asamended.

3 The net sales floorspace of the supermarket shall not exceed 1858 sq m of which nomore than 1393 sq shall be used for the sale of convenience goods and no more than465 sq m shall be used for the sale of comparison goods.

3 To define the floorspace as the application has been considered on the basis of thespecific floorspaces specified and to ensure that any impact on other centres iscontrolled in accordance with policies CS1 CS5 and CS 10 in the East CambridgeshireCore Strategy 2009 and the NPPF.

4 No development shall begin until the applicant has secured the implementation of aprogramme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme ofinvestigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by theLocal Planning Authority. The archaeological work shall be carried out in accordancewith the approved details.

4 Reason: To ensure that any archaeological remains are suitably recorded inaccordance with policy EN5 of the East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy 2009.

5 The landscape scheme required to be submitted by condition 1 shall include full detailsof soft and hard landscape work and boundary treatments, including planting plans, awritten specification, schedules of plants noting species, plant sizes, proposednumbers/densities and an implementation programme. The details shall also indicateall existing trees and hedgerows on the land and details of any to be retained. Thework shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and agreedimplementation programme. Any planting which dies within 5 years shall be replacedin accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local PlanningAuthority in writing.

5 Reason: To assimilate the development into its surroundings, in accordance withpolicy EN1 of the East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy 2009.

6 Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the provision of fire hydrantsshall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.Development shall be carried out in accordance with this approved scheme.

6 To ensure that adequate provision is made for fire fighting.

7 Any reserved matters application which includes the petrol filling station shall beaccompanied by an assessment of the risks associated with the underground fuelstorage tanks which shall demonstrate that they would not be harmful to the SecondaryA Aquifer. Development shall be carried out in accordance with this assessment ofrisks.

7 Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the landand neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, propertyand ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safelywithout unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors, inaccordance with policy EN8 of the East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy 2009.

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


9 No occupation of any part of the development shall take place until a verification report,demonstrating completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy andthe effectiveness of the remediation, has been submitted to and approved in writing bythe local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoringcarried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that thesite remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan ( a "long-termmonitoring and maintenance plan") for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages,maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verificationplan. The long term monitoring and maintenance shall be implemented as approved.


10 Development shall not commence until a surface water drainage scheme for the site,based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological andhydrogeological context of the development, have been submitted to and approved inwriting by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implementedin accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

The scheme shall also include:details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completiondetails of any pollution prevention measures

10 Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to improve and protect waterquality, in accordance with policies EN3 and EN7 of the East Cambridgeshire CoreStrategy 2009.

11 Prior to the commencement of development details of external lighting shall besubmitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Developmentshall be carried out in accordance with these approved details.

11 Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers and in theinterest of biodiversity, in accordance with policies EN2 and EN6 of the EastCambridgeshire Core Strategy 2009.

12 Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for CCTV coverage shall besubmitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in writing.Development shall be carried out in accordance with this scheme.

12 In the interest of crime prevention and community safety in accordance with Policy EN2of the East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy 2009.

13 No development shall commence until a foul water strategy has been submitted to andapproved by the local planning authority in writing. The development shall not bebrought into use until the works have been carried out in accordance with the foul waterstrategy as approved.

13 To avoid flooding downstream from foul drainage to accord with policy EN7 in the

14 The hours of opening of the retail store and petrol station shall be limited to:7:00 to 22:00 Monday to Friday8:00 to 22:00 Saturdays10:00 to 16:00 Sundays and Bank Holidays

14 Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers, inaccordance with policy EN2 of the East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy 2009.

15 No customers shall be on the premises of the pub/restaurant between the hours ofmidnight and 7am.


16 There shall be no servicing of the site, no goods shall be unloaded or deposited and novehicles shall arrive, depart, be loaded or unloaded within the site except within thefollowing hours:7:00 to 22.00 Monday to Friday

8:00 to 18:00 Saturdays10:00 to 16:00 Sundays and Bank Holidays


17 The specific rated noise level emitted from plant or machinery located on the site shallnot exceed the existing background noise level or 35 dB, whichever is the higher. Thenoise levels shall be measures and/or calculated at the boundary of the nearest noisesensitive property ( except for No 2 The Shade where it will be calculated at 55m fromthe boundary with the highway). The noise level shall be measured and/or calculatedin accordance with the BS4142.


18 Prior to the commencement of development details of a barrier to the entrance to thesite or alternatively to particular elements of the site and the hours that thisbarrier/barriers will be closed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the localplanning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approveddetails and the barrier/barriers shall be retained in perpetuity.

18 In the interest of residential amenity and community safety in accordance with PolicyEN2 in the East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy 2009.

19 Construction work shall be limited to the following hours:

8:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday8:00 to 13:00 Saturdays

There shall be no construction work on Sundays and Bank Holidays


20 Prior to the first use of any phase of the development a noise report, undertaken by acompetent person, shall be submitted specifying the predicted impact of noise from thedevelopment on nearby residential dwellings and mitigation measures required,including those to meet the plant noise limits specified in condition 17. Mitigationmeasures for all aspects of noise from the site shall form part of a noise managementplan to be submitted to and agreed with the local planning authority in writing andimplemented prior to the use of the relevant phase of development. (The noise fromthe recyling area shall form part of this as well as mitigation proposed along thewestern boundary).


21 Any reserved matters application that includes details of the appearance of therestaurant/cafe shall be accompanied by the odour control system that is to be used,along with hours of use and the type of food that is to be used. Development shall becarried out in accordance with the approved odour control details.


22 There shall be no external amplified music.


23 Prior to the commencement of development a phasing plan shall be submitted to andapproved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Development shall be carried outin accordance with this phasing plan.

23 There are separate elements of the proposal which might come forward at differenttimes and the development will need to be coordinated such that strategic elements areprovided at the appropriate time. This will ensure that the character and appearance ofthe area is safeguarded in accordance with Policy EN2 in the East CambridgeshireCore Spatial Strategy.

24 The details to be provided under condition 1 shall include the provision of an accessup to the boundary with the adjacent land ( included within the submitted Masterplanfor the Wider Area, Soham Northern Gateway"), without any intervening land betweensuch access to be designed to B1 and B2 use highway design standards.

24 The land forms part of a larger site, identified in the Soham Masterplan Vision whichforms part of the evidence base of the East Cambridgeshire Draft Local Plan, thatneeds to be developed comprehensively in the interest of securing sustainabledevelopment in accordance with the NPPF.

25 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General PermittedDevelopment) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting the order with orwithout modification) no internal alterations shall be carried out which would result in a)an increase in the total gross floorspace of the development; or b) the subdivision ofthe unit.

25 To control the size of the store and ensure that any impacts on other centres iscontrolled in accordance with policies CS1 CS5 and CS 10 in the East CambridgeshireCore Strategy 2009 and the NPPF.

26 No development shall take place until a scheme for the protection during constructionof the trees and hedgerows to be retained on the site, in accordance with BS5837:2005 - Trees in relation to construction - Recommendations, has been submittedto and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall show theextent of root protection areas and details of ground protection measures and fencingto be erected around the trees, including the type and position of these. The protectivemeasures contained with the scheme shall be implemented prior to thecommencement of any development, site works or clearance in accordance with theapproved details, and shall be maintained and retained until the development iscompleted. Within the root protection areas the existing ground level shall be neitherraised nor lowered and no materials, temporary buildings, plant, machinery or surplussoil shall be placed or stored thereon. If any trenches for services are required withinthe fenced areas they shall be excavated and backfilled by hand and any tree rootsencountered with a diameter of 25mm or more shall be left unsevered.

26 Reason: To ensure that the trees on site are adequately protected, to safeguard thecharacter and appearance of the area, in accordance with policies EN1 and EN2 of theEast Cambridgeshire Core Strategy 2009.

27 Prior to the commencement of development all trees within the site shall be inspectedto establish their potential to support bat roosts and bat activity survey transects shallbe undertaken during the bat activity season to determine the level of bat activity withinthe site to inform a suitable mitigation strategy. The results of this work together withthe proposed mitigation shall be submitted to and approved by the Local PlanningAuthority in writing prior to the commencement of development. Development shall becarried out in accordance with the agreed mitigation measures.

27 In the interest of protecting the biodiversity of the area in accordance with Policy EN6of the East Cambridgeshire Core Spatial Strategy.

28 Prior to the commencement of development a sustainable construction and energyefficiency scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authorityin writing. This shall demonstrate how at least 10% of the energy requirements of thescheme can be provided from decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources.Development shall be carried out in accordance with this scheme.

28 In the interests of sustainable development to meet the requirements of policies EN3and EN4 in the East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy 2009.

29 Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the proposed temporaryconstruction access, its associated traffic management, the arrangements for routeingof construction vehicles on the public highway and the provision of on site parking,turning, loading and unloading areas for all vehicles during construction shall besubmitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. No developmentshall commence until the details approved for the temporary construction access havebeen completed in accordance with the approved details.

29 To promote safe access to/from the site during the period of construction

30 The roundabout as shown on the approved plan 1012-02 rev C shall be completed inaccordance with the approved details, prior to the first use of the site.

31 To provide safe access to/from the development

32 Prior to the commencement of development full details of the proposed improvementsto 2 bus stops on The Shade/Townsend shall be submitted to and approved by theLocal Planning Authority in writing. The details shall include bus shelters, real timeinformation displays and raised kerbs. The measures detailed on the approved planshall be completed prior to first use of the development.

32 To provide convenient access to/from the store

33 The details required by condition 1 shall include a plan showing the provision forparking, drop off/pick up servicing. The agreed layout shall be provided before the firstuse of the site and shall thereafter be retained for this purpose.

33 To ensure adequate on-site provision for customers, employees and deliveries.

34 Development shall not commence until a scheme for the improvement of the publicrights of way within and adjoining the site has been submitted to and approved by thelocal planning authority in writing. This scheme shall include the provision of a link toNorthfield Road. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to occupationof any phase of the development.

34 To ensure the provision of access to the site by pedestrians and cyclists in the interestof sustainable transport in accordance with policy S6 in the East Cambridgeshire CoreStrategy.

Informatives

This decision has been made in accordance with the following policies

1 East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy 2009

CS1 Spatial StrategyCS8 AccessCS10 SohamS1 Location of retail and town centre usesS4 Developer contributionS6 Transport impactS7 Parking provisionEN1 Landscape and settlement characterEN2 DesignEN6 Biodiversity and geologyEN7 Flood riskEN8 Pollution

Supplementary Planning Documents

Developer Contributions and Planning Obligations

National Planning Policy Framework 2012

2 Ensuring the vitality of town centres7 Requiring good design10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

2 In reaching this decision this Council has implemented the requirements in the NPPF todeliver sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner.

The Committee had regard to relevant policies in the development plan. They also hadregard to the submitted retail assessment. It was not satisfied that there were anysequentially preferable sites within Soham and concluded that a new supermarket wouldmeet the needs of Soham.The Committee took into account that the Soham Masterplan had highlighted the needfor a further convenience store in the northern part of the town. It also took into accountthat further growth is expected within Soham.

The Committee concluded that the development, if completed in accordance with theplans and conditions (where applicable) will improve the social, economic andenvironmental conditions of the area.

3 Concerns are raised in relation to the submitted illustrative layout. In particular, the rightof way running through the site in a north south direction is not retained on its existingroute and an existing right of way is shown sandwiched between the rear of thesupermarket and the existing industrial estate. The applicant is requested to give furtherconsideration to the layout of the scheme prior to the submission of a reserved mattersapplication.

4 This development should be carried out in strict accordance with the provisions of theEnvironment Agency letter, which attaches to this consent.

5 The Defra Guidance "Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from CommercialKitchen Exhausts" will be used to assess the scheme submitted in accordance withcondition 22.

Appendix 2 - page 1

APPENDIX 2TITLE: UPDATE REPORT ON PLANNING APPROVAL E/12/00247/OUM –PROPOSED FOODSTORE (A1), TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING,SERVICING AREA AND PETROL FILLING STATION, A COMMUNITY STYLEPUB/RESTAURANT (A3,A4) ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND HIGHWAYENGINEERING WORKS. LAND PARCEL EAST OF 2 THE SHADE SOHAMCAMBRIDGESHIRE

Committee: Planning Committee

Date: 7th August 2013

Author: Sue Wheatley, Principal Development Management Officer.[N75]

1.0 ISSUE

1.1 At Planning Committee on 15 May 2013, Members determined thatapplication E/12/00247/OUM, for a supermarket in Soham, be approved inprinciple subject to the following matters being addressed by the Head ofPlanning and Sustainable Development and reported back to the PlanningCommittee for final agreement: Appropriate conditions Section 106 contributions Revisions to the indicative plans Information on the name of the store operator Consideration of possible access to the neighbouring land

1.2 A copy of the previous report is attached for Members information.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION(S)

2.1 It is recommended that:

Members note the progress that has been made to date in relation to theitems that they wanted to agree.

3.0 BACKGROUND/OPTIONS

3.1 Conditions: Draft conditions were produced and sent to the applicant forcomment. Whilst the applicant is happy with most of the conditionsdiscussions are on-going in relation to some of the draft conditions.

3.2 S106 Agreement: The previous report set out that two different contributionswere being proposed:

Appendix 2 - page 2

£150,000 towards public transport £100,000 towards town centre improvements

3.3 The LHA’s preference is for the public transport contribution to go towards Elyand Soham Dial-a-ride rather than towards a hopper type service. Furtherinformation and clarification has been sought in relation to this.

3.4 Dial-a-ride is a pre-bookable minibus service that will collect people from theirdoor and take people to their local destination. Passengers have to give theservice 48 hrs notice of their need to travel and the service rings passengersthe day before with the time they will collect and return the passenger (to theirdoor). Membership is open to people who cannot access public transport,either through disability or because public transport does not exist. Thecurrent membership fee is £10 per annum. One suggestion from the LHA isthat the S106 contribution could be used to fund membership for people wholive in a specified area in Soham and surrounding villages.

3.5 The LHA has clarified that their main concern about a hopper service is itslong term viability. They believe that dial-a-ride would offer a more flexibleservice that could cover a wider area without a vehicle being tied up on fixedroutes carrying not many people. Soham Town Council have advised thattheir preference would be for a hopper type bus and that a dedicated serviceis not required. The developer has also advised that this would be theirpreference. Discussions are therefore on-going in relation to this.

3.6 The previous report set out possible options for the town centre improvementcontribution. Soham Town Council have asked whether the contributioncould go towards the works to the Soham Pavilion.

3.7 S106 contributions need to meet the following tests: Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms Directly related to the development Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

The provision of a public transport contribution would meet this test as theNPPF sets out that out of centre sites should be well served by publictransport and linking the store in some way to the town centre would be ameans of attempting to mitigate the effect of the store on the town centre. Acontribution to improvements within the town centre to make it more attractiveto shoppers also meets the tests however it is much more difficult to concludethat a contribution towards Soham Pavilion would meet the tests. Officers aredue to attend a meeting of the Town Council.

3.8 Revisions to indicative layout: The applicant has been requested to amendthe indicative layout but has advised that this request is unreasonablebecause it is an outline application. Further advice is being sought from theCouncil’s legal team.

Appendix 2 - page 3

3.9 The store operator: The applicant has been asked if it is possible to providefurther details of the likely store operator. No details have been forthcoming.However, which operator it might be is not a material planning consideration.

3.10 Access to adjacent land: Discussions are on-going with the applicantregarding this. To ensure that the access is constructed and available to beused to give access to the adjacent land this matter would need to beaddressed in the S106 agreement.

4.0 ARGUMENTS/CONCLUSIONS

4.1 In conclusion, whilst progress has been made in relation to the application anumber of matters remain outstanding and a further Update Report willtherefore be required.

5.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS/EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5.1 There are no additional financial implications arising from this report.

5.2 Equality Impact Assessment (INRA) not required

6.0 APPENDICES

6.1 Copy of Report 12/00247/OUM (Planning Committee, 15th May 2013)

Background Documents

Application file –E/12/00247/OUM

LocationRoom 11A

Contact Officer

Sue WheatleyPrincipal Development ManagementOfficer(01353) 616229E-mail:[email protected]

Appendix 3 – Page 1

APPENDIX 3

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 One of the main issues which needs to be considered under this application isnational and local retail policy which seeks to direct retail development to towncentres and to protect their vitality and viability.

1.2 Another main issue is whether the proposal would accord with the Council’semerging policy for Soham.

1.3 Aligned to this is the need for comprehensive development for this part of Sohamand the poor quality of the submitted illustrative plans which do not retain animportant by-way and the landscape impact of the scheme.

1.4 The applicant believes that the submitted sequential test and impact assessment hasdemonstrated that this is an appropriate site for a retail store and pub/restaurant.

1.5 Your officers are concerned however that the proposal would impact upon plannedinvestment in the town centre ie the expansion of the Budgens store, which two ofthe main supermarket operators have shown an interest in and that this would beharmful to the vitality and viability of the town centre.

MAIN CASE

Proposal: Proposed food store (A1), together with associated parking,servicing area and petrol filling station, a community stylepub/restaurant (A3, A4) associated car parking and highwayengineering works.

Location: Land Parcel East Of 2 The Shade Soham Cambridgeshire

Applicant: Harrier Developments Ltd

Agent: ICIS Consulting

Reference No: 12/00247/OUM

Case Officer: Sue Finlayson

Parish: SohamWard: Soham North

Ward Councillor/s: Councillor Tony CornellCouncillor James Palmer

Date Received: 26 March 2012 Expiry Date: 25 June 2012[N8]


1.6 The majority of technical matters could be addressed by suitably worded planningconditions. However, the County Archaeologist has recommended that trialtrenching be carried out before the application is determined but the applicant is notwilling to do this.

1.7 It is therefore recommended that the application be refused because it does notaccord with national and local policy in relation to retail development, and because itwould be harmful to the vitality and viability of the town and prejudice the emerginglocal plan together with an archaeological reason for refusal.

1.8 A site visit has been arranged for 11.00am, prior to the meeting.

2.0 THE APPLICATION

2.1 This is an outline application, with all matters reserved except for access, for afoodstore (A1), petrol filling station and public house/restaurant (A3, A4). A numberof illustrative plans accompany this application, including a site plan, site sectionsand a proposed massing plan.

2.2 The foodstore would occupy an area of 2.327 Ha and comprise 3,809 sq m (41,000sq ft) gross internal floorspace with a net retail sales area of 1,858 sq m (20,000 sqft). The store’s net sales area would be made up of 1,393 sq m (15,000 sq ft) forconvenience goods and 465 sq m (5,000 sq ft) for comparison goods. The balanceof the store’s internal floorspace would comprise the checkout area (339 sq m, 3644sq ft), staff area ( 511 sq m, 5,500 sq ft), customer toilets and circulation( 225 sq m,2,424 sq ft) and storage area (876 sq m, 9,432 sq ft. A total of 282 car parkingspaces are proposed to the front of the foodstore, of these 16 spaces are allocatedas impaired mobility spaces, 14 for parent and child parking. 38 cycle spaces and 19motor cycle spaces are also proposed. A service yard is proposed to the rear of thestore.

2.3 The pub/restaurant is described as a community style public house/restaurant andwould have a floorspace of 622 sq m. It is intended that this would be predominatelyfood led. Accommodation of 129 sq m at first floor level is proposed for use by themanager. This building is shown on the submitted site plan adjacent to The Shade.

2.4 Vehicular access to serve all elements of the proposal would be from The Shade witha proposed new roundabout with Kingfisher Drive. Pedestrian access would be fromThe Shade and from Northfield Road via byway 23 (proposed to be downgraded to abridleway) or diverted footpath 25.

2.5 The application is supported by: An illustrative masterplan, for the wider area Planning Statement Design and Access Statement Retail Assessment Community Public House/Restaurant Assessment Transport Assessment Statement of Community Involvement Tree Survey and Arboricultural Implications Assessment


Flood Risk/Drainage Assessment Phase 1 Environmental Screening Report Ecological Biodiversity Assessment Archaeological Desktop Assessment

3.0 THE APPLICANT’S CASE

3.1 The application can be viewed on the Council’s website via the following link:http://pa.eastcambs.gov.uk/online-applications/

3.2 The applicant argues that the proposal complies with retail and leisure policy

As there are no other sequentially preferable sites in Soham and; the impact on Soham’s town centre would be acceptable.

3.3 In addition, the applicant argues that the proposal would give rise to the followingsignificant planning benefits: Greater competition between foodstore retailers and enhanced consumer choice Greater competition between petrol filling station operators A greater consumer choice for eating and drinking establishments, providing a

new type of facility within the town Reduction in the need to travel thus reducing the carbon footprint of Soham’s

residents Social inclusion Creating a community feel to the north of Soham Claw back of expenditure currently lost to Soham Employment generation both day and evening thus reducing “out-commuting” Facilitating the “pump priming” of further employment land

3.4 The applicant also argues that there are no environmental, ecological or heritageissues that would deem the site unsuitable

4.0 THE SITE AND ITS ENVIRONMENT

4.1 The site is located on the northern side of Soham to the east of The Shade. It is aGreenfield site. There are hedgerows along the southern and western boundaries ofthe site and also running through the central portion of the site. A byway and footpath25 run through the site. Northfield Business Park is located to the north west of thesite and there are residential properties to the north and south and new residentialdevelopment opposite, where a new primary school is also under construction. Thesite is separated from the A142 Soham By-pass by fields.

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY


6.0 REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS

6.1 Neighbours were notified and a site notice was displayed. 665 comments in supportof the application were received. 51 letters of objection were received, raising thefollowing issues:

The development will have a negative impact on Soham Town Centre; The area is already supplied with adequate supermarkets in Soham itself and in

Ely and Newmarket; The application doesn’t conform with the Soham Masterplan; The principle of locating a foodstore at the proposed site is not acceptable

development, as the site is located outside of the ‘Development Envelope’; The application is not in conformity with Policy CS5 which allocates 500sqm of

convenience floorspace within Soham. This allocation has recently beencaptured by a planning permission at the Town Centre Budgens store;

The applicant has failed to provide evidence that the proposed development willmeet the criteria of Policy S1. The applicant has not shown that there is a needfor the supermarket; has failed to show that the development would not have anadverse effect on the vitality and viability of the town centre; has not shown thatthe development would be accessible by a choice of means of transport;

The applicant has over exaggerated the catchment area for the proposedsupermarket, and in doing so has played down the impact on Soham TownCentre;

The Supplementary Retail Assessment submitted in November 2012 does notaddress previous concerns raised regarding the catchment area and inflatedtrading levels of existing retailers;

The convenience turnover has been underestimated by the applicant who hasproposed a significantly lower turnover than the benchmark figure for a ‘Big Four’supermarket;

The shopping survey carried out by the applicant was limited and does not give aclear picture of Soham’s shopping habits;

The assessment of the impact of the proposed store on the vitality and viability ofSoham Town Centre is insufficient;

The sequential test provides insufficient justification that the application site is themost appropriate site for a new supermarket in Soham;

The High Street will be by passed and Town Centre shops will suffer; The edge of village location is unsustainable;

01/01160/FUL Change of use fromagricultural to D1 (nonresidential training).Approval of layout toinclude pre-fabricatedoffice accommodation,road access and carparking.

Refused 11.12.2002


The proposal will increase traffic and have a negative impact on road safety andwill increase traffic;

The amount of retail floor space proposed is not necessary and is too large forSoham;

The proposal goes against government guidance of “Town Centre First”.

6.2 Cambridgeshire County Council - Object on the grounds that the proposal conflictswith both the statutory development plan and supplementary masterplan guidance. Itis outside the development envelope of Soham and would be contrary to CoreStrategy Policy CS5 which includes provision for approximately 550sqm (net) ofconvenience floorspace. The scheme would have a negative impact on the vitalityand viability of the town centre.

6.3 Ward Councillor – Welcomes some retail development of this kind in Soham North.Subject to full and proper examination of the plans favourable consideration will begiven. Concerned about the loss of green space and wildlife habitat and suggeststhat there is plenty of room for a relocated car park in the employment area to thenorth of the supermarket and vice versa. Would like to see protection for the presentamenities and green space retained and developed for community use and wildlife.

6.4 CCC Rights of Way Officer – No comments on principle of the proposeddevelopment. If the development is deemed acceptable and on condition thatadequate alternatives are provided to a standard agreed with ourselves we will notobject to the changes to these rights of way as outlined in the supporting documents.

6.5 Environmental Health – Has concerns that waiting for the reserved mattersapplication may result in difficulties imposing conditions to ensure the developmentdoes not have an adverse impact on nearby residents and therefore recommended10 conditions regarding hours of operation, delivery and construction, noise levels,odour control and lighting.

6.6 Access Group – Suggested a number of details to help with access and useincluding Blue Badge parking standards, 2 level ATMs and customer services, toiletfacilities and ‘pay at pump’ options at the petrol station.

6.7 Soham Town Council – No objection.

6.8 Anglian Water – Requested conditions requiring a drainage strategy, foul waterstrategy and surface water disposal. Also requested a note to be attached to anypermission regarding the discharge of trade effluent.

6.9 Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Suggested that prior to any planning permissionbeing granted diagrams showing adequate CCTV and lighting to combat vehiclecrime, shop theft and petrol station crime are submitted for approval. Although I amnot happy with the footpath running between the side of the food store and thebusiness park, as this is an existing ROW I don’t see an alternative route.Recommends that the applicant consults with the Crime Prevention Design Team atCambridgeshire Constabulary HQ regarding the public house.


6.10 Trees Officer – Objects on the grounds that the development will have a significantdetrimental impact on the local landscape of this part of Soham, leading to the loss ofopen fields and hedgerows, reducing biodiversity. A large area of land will be neededfor the significant new landscape planting required to act as a buffer on the north-west side of the site. There is also little scope for new hedges and trees within thecar park. This is contrary to Core Strategy Policies EN1, EN2 and EN6 and shouldnot be recommended for approval.

6.11 Campaign for the Protection of Rural England Cambridgeshire and Peterborough –Object on the grounds that the site is outside the development envelope, the size ofthe food store is excessive and contrary to policy in the Soham Masterplan, it iscontrary to the policy preferring retail floor space in the town centre and to the policypreferring retail floorspace on the eastern boundary of the town centre if the towncentre is not available.

6.12 Environment Agency – Following the submission of additional information wewithdraw our objection to the proposed development providing the undergroundstorage tanks are located as shown on the Michael Thomas Consultancy LLPdrawing no. 1012-16, dated 31 May 2012. Permission should only be granted subjectto conditions regarding contamination and the submission of surface water drainagescheme. It is also recommended that a condition is imposed to ensure the protectionof any water voles that may be present on site.

6.13 County Highways – The LHA has advised that the A142/The Shade junction and thesite access have sufficient capacity for the proposed development. They haverequested improvements to the bus service and bus stops. They requestedclarification in relation to parking and cycle parking and footpath proposals. Theyalso raised issues in relation to the safety audit and requested a number of otherpossible transport contributions. Following discussion with the applicant they havenow confirmed that the roundabout would be acceptable. (Subject to some minorkerb line alterations would be sought by the LHA as part of their highway worksagreement purposes).

6.14 Fire Authority – If the development is permitted the Fire Authority would ask thatadequate provision be made for fire hydrants, which may be by way of Section 106agreement or a planning condition.

6.15 CCC Archaeology- Further information is required regarding the extent and characterof archaeological significance to be affected by the proposed development.Consequently a recommendation for a programme of archeological evaluation on thesite has been made.

7.0 THE PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

7.1 East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy 2009

CS1 Spatial StrategyCS4 EmploymentCS5 Retail and town centre usesCS6 EnvironmentCS8 Access


CS10 SohamS1 Location of retail and town centre usesS2 Retail uses in town centresS4 Developer contributionS6 Transport impactS7 Parking provisionEN1 Landscape and settlement characterEN2 DesignEN3 Sustainable construction and energy efficiencyEN4 Renewable energyEN5 Historic conservationEN6 Biodiversity and geologyEN7 Flood riskEN8 Pollution

7.2 Supplementary Planning Documents

Developer Contributions and Planning Obligations

7.3 National Planning Policy Framework 2012

2 Ensuring the vitality of town centres7 Requiring good design10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment12 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

8.0 PLANNING COMMENTS

8.1 Due to the location of the site and the nature of the proposal the main issues toconsider in determining this application are:

whether the proposal fits with current local and national retail and leisureuse policy;

the design of the development, including the lack of a comprehensiveapproach and its landscape and visual impact

the impact on residential amenity the impact on traffic and parking in the area. The impact on rights of way Ecology Archaeology Flood risk and drainage Contamination

8.2 Current local and government policy in respect of the proposed development:The NPPF includes a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policy ontown centre uses, (retail and pub/restaurant uses are defined as town centre uses) iscontained within paragraphs 23-27 of the NPPF. The principle is to concentrateretailing and other main town centre uses within town centres. The application site isnot located within Soham town centre and therefore the NPPF requires that asequential test and impact assessment be carried out. The NPPF makes it clear that


when applying the sequential test flexibility is required on issues such as format andscale. The impact assessment needs to include an assessment of:

The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public andprivate investment in centres within the catchment area of the proposal.

The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including localconsumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five yearsfrom the time the application is made (for major schemes the impact has to beassessed for 10 years).

When an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have a significantadverse impact on the above, the NPPF advises, it should be refused.

8.3 Turning to local policy, Soham is the second largest settlement in the district,designated a Market Town and a Secondary Town Centre under Core Strategypolicies CS1, CS5 and CS10, where the majority of new development is expected tooccur. Policy CS5 states that approximately 550 sqm (net) of convenience retail floorspace is needed, and ”Retail opportunities should be focussed in the town centrefirst”. “Support will be given to uses and activities which sustain and improve theirvitality and viability, character and attractiveness – and lead to centres becomingmore vibrant and economically successful.” This stance is reiterated in Policy CS10where “sites will be within the town centre or as close to the town centre as possible.…Opportunities to improve the quality of the environment and the retail offer of thetown centre will be explored.” This follows the conclusions of the Council’s RetailStudy (2009) which highlighted the limited range of shops and services, and indicateda need for a small amount of additional convenience retail floor space. However, dueto the vulnerable nature of the town centre, it is important that new retail provision islocated in the centre as out of centre site were likely to adversely affect the long-termhealth and vitality of the town centre. The Core Strategy also notes that ifdevelopment needs to be located outside the town centre the preference would be foran expansion to the east of the town centre. The Retail Study was updated in 2012for the emerging local plan and this identified a need for at least 595 sq m ofadditional food retail floorspace and 658 sq m of additional non-food retail floorspaceup to 2031.

8.4 The proposals in the Soham Masterplan Vision are centred on opening up new town‘gateways’ together with unlocking the potential of the town centre retail core. TheMasterplan states that the current key attractors are Budgens and the Co-op, andwhilst there is a high frequency of visits to the town centre, and half of the visits aremade by cycle or foot, the visits tend to be less than 20 minutes in length, and thereis a need to increase the length of visits and the expenditure.

8.5 The application was accompanied by a retail assessment which was updated inNovember 2012. This includes both a sequential test and an impact assessment.

8.6 The sequential test considers the following sites against the Practice Guidance toPPS4 (which is still extant), to see if they are available, suitable and viable:

The Budgens StoreCo-op store and Post OfficeLand off Market St


Church Hall AreaLand South of Staploe MewsHonda Garage

A copy of this is attached for information as Appendix 1. The applicant argues thatwhilst the NPPF advises that regard needs to be had to scale and format, in Soham,disaggregation of the offer would not enable a foodstore to compete with other largerfoodstores in the area. However, no explicit evidence has been submitted todemonstrate why a store needs to have the net sales area that is proposed (1854 sqm). The applicant concludes that none of these sites are available, suitable or viable.However, as part of the emerging local plan process, discussions have been on-goingbetween officers and the landowners of the sites that have been included within thesequential test. Three town centre opportunity sites have been identified in the Pre-submission Draft Local Plan:

Budgens siteChurch Hall areaCo-op store area

8.7 The Budgens store has been granted planning permission for an extension(12/00036/FUM) which would mean that the net convenience floorspace of this storecould be 1106 sq m; only 350 sq m smaller than the convenience provision at theproposed store and a view needs to be taken on whether this would be of a sufficientsize to capture some trade from stores outside Soham. No evidence has beensubmitted to suggest that it wouldn’t. Budgen’s have also announced, very recently,that they have interest in their site from two of the “big four” supermarkets, but thatthis is dependent upon planning permission not being granted for this out of centreproposal. It would therefore appear to be available, suitable and viable.

8.8 It has been estimated that together, the Church Hall and Blue Donkey site, couldaccommodate around 1,000 sq m of retail floorspace. The sequential test suggeststhat this site is neither viable or available because the owner of the Blue Donkey siteis not prepared to sell for a realistic price. This is incorrect. This site would thereforeappear to be suitable, available and viable.

8.9 The Co-op have indicated that they are interested in development of their site andhave been in discussion with the owner of the post office. It is wrong to suggest thatthis site is not suitable because it is within the conservation area and next to thechurch. A well designed scheme could enhance this part of the conservation areaand have a positive impact on the setting of the church. This site would thereforeappear to be suitable, available and viable.

8.10 However the work that has taken place for the emerging local plan supports theapplicant’s view that the Land off Market Street, Land south of Staploe Mews and theHonda Garage can be discounted.

8.11 Advice was sought from a planning consultant in relation to the impact assessment.The revised retail assessment addressed a number of concerns raised in relation tothe original assessment however a number of issues remain in relation to theturnover calculations:


There are concerns about the fact that this is a speculative scheme so it is notpossible to determine whether some of the assumptions that have been made inthe calculations are realistic.

Specific criticisms are raised in relation to the low ratio of net to gross floorspacethat has been used (48:52 instead of the more standard 60:40).

The assumed sales densities are criticised Turnovers are estimated on the basis of household survey data (which is normal

practice) however the survey was carried out prior to the opening of theSainsbury’s store in Ely.

The accuracy of the assumptions in relation to the two Soham town centre storesis disputed

The conclusions’ of the consultant are that:

There is no dispute that the store would clawback some of the expenditure whichgoes to other towns and that it would help provide choice and jobs, however,having regard to the relative size of the Tesco stores in Ely and Newmarket andthe proposed store, the extent of this clawback is disputed.

The retail assessment does not claim that there would be any direct benefits tothe town centre and indeed the store would be unlikely to benefit the town centreas it would not result in linked trips.

Budgens and the Co-op do provide an element of main food shopping and thiswould increase if the extension to Budgens, that has been granted planningpermission were to be implemented.

The applicant is wrong to assume that the Budgens store would not be in directcompletion with the proposed store (extended the convenience sales area ofBudgens would be only 350 sq m smaller than the proposed store).

There are concerns that granting planning permission would impact uponinvestment by Budgens and thus impact upon the town centre.

The impact on comparison goods shopping would be limited as the town centreof Soham contains few comparison shops that have a similar offer to that whichwould be provided by the new store.

8.12 Whilst these conclusions are disputed by the applicant, they are supported bycomments received on behalf of the two town centre stores – Budgens and the Co-op. Budgens have advised that their extant planning permission will not beimplemented at any time whilst this application is outstanding and that it will notproceed should planning permission be granted. They have also announced, veryrecently, that they have interest in their site from two of the “big four” supermarkets,but that this is dependent upon planning permission not being granted for thisproposal. Thus the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on plannedinvestment within Soham and would be contrary to paragraph 26 and 27 in the NPPF.

8.13 A survey has been carried out by Economic Development to try and determine thelevel of linked trips from the Budgen’s and Co-op stores. The headline conclusions ofthis survey are:

83 out of 100 surveyed planned to do food shopping on their visit toSoham.

17 out of 100 surveyed people used the Co-op or Budgens for non foodshopping.


These 100 people generated 120 individual visits to convenience shops.A ratio of 1:2 additional visits for every one person.

The 100 people surveyed generated 16 additional individual visits on topof their trips to the Co-op and Budgens.

The largest recipient of convenience linked trips was Fullers Bakery (9)and Palmers Fruit Shop (4).

The 100 people surveyed generated 87 non food visits in addition to theirCo-op and Budgens visit. A ratio of 0.87 additional visits for every oneperson.

The majority of these non food visits were to service providers (43) ofwhich the biggest linked trips were to Barclays Bank 914), the PO (13)Lloyds (12).

The fourth largest recipient of linked trips in the town centre was LloydsPharmacy (11). With these four key anchors accounting for 50 (57%) ofall additionally generated linked trips.

In total 100 people surveyed generated 207 individual visits to town centrebusinesses.

The two existing stores do therefore help to support existing businesses and thevitality and viability of the town centre. If the Budgens store were to be extended itwould be reasonable to anticipate that linked trips would increase which would helpsupport the town centre and contribute to the regeneration aims of local policy.

8.14 The applicants have submitted a Public House/Restaurant Assessment. Thisconsiders the following existing public houses:

The Fountain The Red Lion The Ship The Cherry Tree The Carpenters Arms

This report identifies that there is no existing public house provision to the north of thetown. It concludes that the provision of the proposed public house/restaurant wouldaddress this imbalance. It includes a sequential test and considers the same sites thatwere considered in the retail assessment. An impact assessment is not provided as thefloorspace, at 622 sq m, is less than the threshold for impact assessments (2,500 sqm). The report concludes that the proposal would not undermine the current offer in thetown centre as there is no particular outlet offering a similar food led offer to thatproposed and that it would complement the “wet led” pubs in the town centre andprovide a more balanced provision of food led establishments within the town. TheFountain PH however is located within the town centre and does serve food. No detailhas been provided within the assessment about the level of activity at this pub and howwell it is trading at the present. It is however well placed within the town centre and itwould appear that it would be unlikely to compete for the same trade. There are twoother pubs within the town centre. It is therefore unlikely that the vitality and viability ofthe town centre would be affected by the pub/restaurant element of the proposal.

8.15 Design, Landscape and visual impact


This is an outline application with all matters reserved except for access and thereforethe submitted details are purely illustrative. However, the site forms part of a larger siteidentified within the Soham Masterplan as the Northern Gateway and as anemployment/mixed use allocation in the Pre-submission Draft Local Plan. Theapplicant has submitted a masterplan for this larger area as a supporting document tothe application. This has been considered by the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel which:

questioned whether a supermarket was an appropriate use given the aspirationsfor a local centre

expressed concern about the impact the proposal would have on the vitality andviability of the town

was not convinced that wider movement patterns had been fully understood,They referred to pupil movements, those from the school, and also noted thatsome of the walking routes appeared to be unsafe going behind buildings

queried the use of a roundabout, suggesting that traffic lights would better reflectthe character of the area

advised that the designs did not reflect the character of Soham and the Panelrecommended that an analysis of Soham’s character be carried out

Further work needed to be carried out in relation to energy proposals The Panel recommended that a stronger planning brief/design brief be produced

The applicant has also provided a number of cross-sectional drawings which providevisual representations of the proposed food store in relation to the surroundinglandscape and existing built form. Whilst the plans are only indicative at this outlinestage they provide an accurate representation of the height of the proposed foodstore, petrol filling station and public/restaurant in relation to the surroundinglandscape.

The cross-sectional drawings indicatively show that the food store will be the bulkiestand most visually prominent of all built development proposed on the site. Howeverthese drawings also show that the food store will not be significantly higher than theexisting dwellings to the north west of the site (those located along The Shade),whilst the predominant ridge-line of the pub/restaurant can be read in conjunctionwith those of the dwellings to the south west of the site.

This is a gateway site, occupying a prominent location on the northern edge ofSoham, in close proximity to the A142 trunk road. This results in views beingavailable towards the site, particularly looking along The Shade from a north westerlydirection and from the relatively open aspect of the A142 directly to the north. Theviews from the A142 are particularly prominent, given the gap that exists(approximately 167m) between the industrial units on Northfield Park and the existingdwellings that line the eastern side of The Shade. This would result in the northernelevation of the food store being visible from the A142, with views of the petrol fillingstation and the pub/restaurant potentially being available beyond the retail element ofthe proposal. However it is important to note that the development could not be readin visual isolation, rather it would be seen against the backdrop of the existingNorthfield Business Park, located immediately to the east. In addition, an illustrativeMasterplan has been submitted for the adjacent land for employment purposes,which implemented, would help to mask the site.

As this is an outline planning application there are aspects of the development whichare subject to change over time. This could result in measures which could mitigate


the impact of built development upon the wider visual landscape, in particularlandscaping proposals. Such landscaping proposals would be considered as part ofany subsequent reserved matters application.

The means of access, is the only matter, being considered at this outline stage and isproposed via the provision of a heavily engineered roundabout from The Shade. Thisroundabout will be sited at the junction with Kingfisher Drive to the west (it has beenmoved slightly northwards since the original submission to ensure it can beaccommodated entirely within highway land). There is however already a roundaboutto the north and having two roundabouts in such close proximity is not ideal. It wouldnot provide an attractive entrance to Soham. Whilst the Local Highway Authoritywould prefer to see the roundabout replaced by a signalised junction they haveadvised that it would be acceptable. The Cambridgeshire Quality Panel howeverhave criticised the use of a roundabout from a public realm point of view and thiscould form an additional reason for refusal.

8.16 Impact on trees/hedges

The Trees Officer has raised an objection to the proposed development on thegrounds of loss of open fields, hedgerows and hedgerow trees. The existing sitecomprises an agricultural field with hedgerows and trees to its boundaries, togetherwith a hedge with trees within the site. It therefore provides some potential forsupporting local biodiversity. To accommodate the proposed development some ofthese hedges and trees would need to be removed. The frontage of the site largelycomprises low-level hedges interspersed with an occasional tree. This provides adegree of greening to the appearance of the Shade. It is accepted that the removal ofthe trees and hedges from the frontage of the site will alter the appearance of thestreet scene in the short term. However given the scale of development beingproposed and the size of the site there are opportunities to retain existing plantingand where appropriate consider compensatory planting on the site, this includes theland to either side of the proposed roundabout, thereby re-introducing a degree ofgreening to the street scene along The Shade.

Again the landscaping proposals would be considered as part of a reserved mattersplanning application. Whilst the overall site plan is only indicative it does show theretention of the line of trees along the southern, eastern and partly along the northernboundary of the site, together with the retention of the trees along a secondaryeastern boundary, this being sited 80m from Northfield Road. This plan also showsthe potential for the provision of a densely landscaped buffer along the north westerncorner of the site (immediately adjacent to The Shade and the proposedroundabout), together with the retention of a landscaped area to the south westerncorner.

The opportunities for biodiversity gain on this site is consistent with the advicecontained within Core Planning Principle 11 of the National Planning PolicyFramework, which at paragraph 109 states that development should provide netgains in biodiversity where possible, whilst at paragraph 118 it states thatopportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should beencouraged. For example the large expanse of land to the east of the car park (withinthe application site) offers opportunities for compensatory planting and/or habitat


creation, this area is shown to be retained as a field, thereby allowing for an existing,relatively undisturbed part of the site to be improved and possibly enhanced.

8.17 Flood Risk/Drainage

The Flood Risk Assessment identifies that the site is located within Flood Zone 1,the area at lowest risk of flooding. However given the scale of the proposals and thepotential introduction of extensive areas of hard standing across the site there couldbe issues arising from the disposal of surface water drainage. It should be noted thatthe Environment Agency have withdrawn their previous objection (on contaminatedland grounds) and recommended the imposition of a planning condition that providesan appropriate scheme for the disposal of surface water drainage. It is consideredthat the imposition of a suitably worded condition would allow the Local PlanningAuthority, in consultation with the Environment Agency, to assess the proposals forsurface water drainage arising from the scheme. Such a condition would require thedetails to be agreed prior to any development commencing on the site.

8.18 Ecology

The Ecological Assessment submitted with the planning application concludes thatthere is potential for bat roosting within existing trees on the site and that the twoditches that line the boundaries could support water vole activity. Therefore therecommendations within the report are for a detailed bat inspection to be undertaken,together with the requirement for a water vole survey. Through applying the NaturalEngland Standing Advice there are features in and around the site that could supportthe protected species that have been identified within the ecological report. ThisStanding Advice states that species specific reports should then be submitted forconsideration. A letter of clarification was received from an additional ecologicalconsultant on 15th October 2012, this was forwarded by the applicant’s agent. Thisletter confirmed that the two ditches on the site would be unlikely to support watervole activity and therefore there would be no requirement for a survey to beundertaken. In light of this additional information it is considered unnecessary forfurther habitat surveys to be undertaken. With regard to the requirement for a batsurvey this could be secured through the imposition of a suitably worded planningcondition. Whilst some trees are to be lost within the centre of the site alternativehabitat would remain around the edges.

8.19 Archaeology

The Archaeology Assessment submitted with the planning application concludes thatthere are no known archaeological interests on the site, that the proposeddevelopment is considered to have a neutral effect on the archaeological resourceand any effects could be adequately mitigated through a programme ofarchaeological recording. The County Council Archaeologist however is not happywith this conclusion and asked that trail trenching be carried out prior todetermination of the application. The applicant is unwilling to do this and hasexpressed concern that the County Council has not asked for such work on othersites. In particular, reference is made to the nearby primary school, which is underconstruction. The County Archaeologist has advised that the two sites are not thesame and that the application site is:


Located on the southern part of the northern field system ( which have beendescribed as one of the most remarkable survivals of medieval fieldsanywhere in the country and that they are also referred to in the ConservationArea Appraisal for Soham).

Close to medieval finds from when the by-pass was constructed At the 5m contour, which is higher than the other land and would therefore

have been more likely to be attractive to medieval settlement The Archaeological Assessment also notes that the depth and nature of

deposits is unknown.

The applicant has suggested that as the application is only an outline one that thesurvey could be conditioned and if necessary the buildings re-positioned. However, thiswould not be so straightforward due to the size of building required for a retail store. Itis therefore recommended that the application be refused on this ground. If theapplicant were to lodge an appeal against refusal this technical matter could beaddressed in the period leading up to the appeal.

8.20 Rights of Way (ROW)

At present there are two Byways running across the site. The first, Byway 205/23,runs east to west connecting The Shade and Northfield Road. The second, Byway205/21, runs north to south along the western boundary of Northfield Business Parkconnecting Byway 205/23 with the A142.

The north/south route, 205/21, is proposed to be incorporated into the proposeddevelopment, running between the food stores and Northfield Business Park. Part ofthe east/west route, 205/23, will be relocated to the south of the site and downgradedto a bridleway, this will run a course from Northfield Road between the rear of thedwellings on Northfield Park and the proposed car park. The north/south byway willremain connected to the byway running along the south side of the NorthfieldBusiness Park.

The relocation of the east/west route and the retention of the north/south route arethe main issues to consider. Of particular relevance to these ROW proposals isemerging policy SOH11 (Green Lanes and Commons) of the East CambridgeshireDraft Local Plan Pre-submission Version (February 2013). This policy states thatdevelopment proposals which contain or adjoin green lanes and public rights of wayshould respect their integrity and not adversely affect their character andappearance. In addition this policy states that all public rights of way should beretained in their original position- unless alternative locations would providesignificant access benefits.

The main issue with the retained north/south route is that it will be enclosed by theproposed supermarket on one side and the existing buildings within NorthfieldBusiness Park, thereby creating a narrow passage with increased safety concerns.At present this route has an open outlook across a field to the west, the introductionof the food store would result in an unbroken mass of wall along its westernboundary, this in turn would increase the sense of enclosure and remove the naturalsurveillance that currently exists.


With regard to the relocation of the east/west route it is accepted that its new coursewould be alongside a softer edge along the southern boundary and it will connectwith existing pedestrian accesses from Northfield Park. However the relocation ofthis footpath would remove the course of the existing green lane, thereby removingits integrity, character and appearance in the process. It is considered that thereplacement footpath would not improve access, rather it would result in a longerroute being taken along the southern boundary where it would re-connect with anexisting footpath. The course of the footpath is shown to be replaced with car parkingto serve the proposed food store. Given the greened, tree lined appearance of thiskey route from the Shade to Northfield Road it is considered that the loss of thisROW should be resisted.

The Rights of Way Officer at Cambridgeshire County Council states that if thedevelopment proposal is granted permission they will not object to the relocation ofbyway 205/23. However on balance (taking into account this consultation response)it is considered that the course of this green lane through the site should be retainedand improved/enhanced where possible.

8.21 Noise, light, odour and contamination

The application makes no provision for the mitigation of environmental concerns,including odour, noise and lighting. As the scheme includes a public house inrelatively close proximity to a number of residential dwellings it is important toconsider the impact of the proposal on the residential amenity of these properties.However, as the application is for outline permission it is not possible to know theexact type or nature of the public house or food store.

Nonetheless there is some concern that if these issues are left for the ReservedMatters stage that it may not be possible to adequately control them. As a result theEnvironmental Health Officer has suggested that these issues should be dealt with atoutline application stage and has recommended a series of conditions to be attachedif permission is granted. This is deemed to be a sufficient method for dealing withthese issues at this outline stage.

Given the relative proximity to residential properties noise issues could arise fromdelivery vehicles accessing the pub/restaurant, food store and petrol filling station. Acondition has been recommended by Environmental Health that all deliveries takeplace between the following hours:

7am-10pm Monday to Friday 8am-6pm on Saturdays 10am-4pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

It is considered that the imposition of such a condition would ensure that deliverieswould take place during social hours, thereby removing the potential for loss ofresidential amenity to neighbouring properties through the effects of noise disruption.

In respect of contaminated land, no objections have been raised by EnvironmentalHealth. The Environment Agency has recommended the imposition of aprecautionary approach condition in respect of contamination that may be


encountered during development. It is considered reasonable for such a condition tobe imposed as part of any planning permission granted.

8.22 Highways

The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment. Survey work has beencarried out and the impact on junctions has been modelled (with the new primaryschool included). This has concluded that the A142/The Shade junction and the siteaccess would operate within capacity.

At the request of the LHA the developer has agreed to improve the 2 bus stops andalso provide a contribution towards public transport by making a contribution towardsEly and Soham Dial a Ride. The LHA has advised that the bus stops should havereal-time, shelters, raised kerbs and a maintenance sum of £5,000 each.

A car parking accumulation survey has been carried out which has confirmed that thecar parking provision at peak times (Saturday) would meet demand. The applicanthas also agreed to increase cycle parking provision to 92 spaces.

The LHA have also recommended the provision of a drop off bay to be used by taxisand public transport, a construction management plan, a car park management planand that a fully worked up Travel Plan are submitted for approval as part of anyconsent. These could be addressed by conditions or a S106 Agreement.

They also sought the following additional transport contributions:

1. Footway on west side of Northfield Road2. Improvements to the surface of Byway 19 between The Shade and Redshank

Close3. Pedestrian crossing at Townsend/Hall Street/Pratt Street

The developer has advised that items 2 and 3 are not to be provided as there is analternative route to Byway 19 and that the request for the pedestrian crossing wouldbe unrelated to the development. Item 1 is being partly provided as a proposedpublic footpath within the site.

A Stage 1 Safety Audit has been carried out by the LHA. In the first audit the LHAexpressed concern that a roundabout wasn’t a good junction for cycling andsuggested that an alternative junction be investigated. They have advised that theirpreference would be for a traffic signalized junction. The developer however is stillproposing a roundabout. The developer has given Designer’s Responses to theauditors. Bearing in mind that the roundabout would be constructed within a trafficcalming scheme already proposed for The Shade, as part of the school development,the LHA have concluded that the roundabout design shown on the revised drawing(ref 1012-02C) is acceptable.

Developer Contributions:

The applicant has submitted draft Heads of Terms for a S106 Agreement. Thefollowing are proposed:


Highway Works – traffic signage, footpaths, lighting and associated works withthe access, to include the construction and provision of a roundabout

Hopper Bus Service - £150,000 for the provision of a bus hopper servicebetween the site and town of Soham

Travel Plan – appointment of Travel Plan CoordinatorTown Centre Contribution - £100,000 for the provision of Soham town centre

enhancements and improvements.

Instead of contributions to a hopper bus service it was concluded, in discussions withthe LHA, that it would be better for the contribution to go towards Ely and Soham Diala Ride.

The Council’s Business Development Team, have advised, that they have beenworking with Soham Town Council and Soham Traders Association over the last 12months. This has highlighted a need for short term actions together with the need tosupport a longer term vision and future action plans. Three options have beensuggested by them:

Option 1 – Part-time Town Centre Officer and projects

A Town Centre Officer could be employed for 2 days per week for 3 years, whichwould still leave a balance of between £65,000 -£70,000 for town centre projects. Itmight be possible to explore with West Suffolk joint working on a town centreresource for the Brandon-Newmarket-Soham axis.

Option 2 – Support existing town centre structures and activities

Work with existing partnership bodies such as Soham Town Council and SohamTraders Association to support existing activities and initiatives within the town centreand allow bids from the S106 monies that could include:

Events Town centre shop improvements Town centre environmental improvements Business support E-commerce Joint purchasing

Supported by existing Town Centre Team.

Option 3 – External Consultancy Support

Funding could be used to buy in external consultancy support to work on developingsome of the long term actions identified by Soham Traders, including:

Support for marketing the centre as a coherent offer and development of a towncentre brand

Develop a retail strategy and long term town centre action planIdentification and development of funding bids.


However, your officers do not consider that any of the above would fully mitigate theimpact that the proposal would have on the planned investment at the Budgens storeand the impact that the proposal would have on the vitality and viability of the town.

Since the application was submitted a charging schedule has been introduced underthe Community Infrastructure Levy(CIL). The charging rate for retail development(which also includes related uses like petrol filling stations) is £120 per sq m. The netnew floorspace of the proposed food store would be 3809 sq m. In addition theproposed petrol filling station would be included within the charging rate for retaildevelopment.

Conclusion: Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development planunless material considerations indicate otherwise. The advice in the NPPF is also animportant material consideration which needs to be given significant weight. Thedevelopment plan, Core Strategy Policies CS1 CS5 and CS10 identify Soham as aMarket Town and a Secondary Town Centre where the majority of new developmentis expected to occur. Policy CS5 states that approximately 550 sq m of conveniencefloorspace is needed. Retail development is to be concentrated within the town centreor as close as possible to the town centre to support its vitality and viability. Thesepolicies accord with the advice in the NPPF which indicates that retail developmentshould be directed towards town centres and that for sites outside town centres asequential test and impact assessment need to be carried out. The sequential test isnot satisfied as an extension to Budgens would provide a store with 1106 sq m ofretail floorspace and the applicant has not demonstrated conclusively that there are nosequentially preferable sites available. In addition, there are issues with the impactassessment and, whilst it is recognised that there are local people would like to see asupermarket, the development of a store on the outskirts of Soham would not benefitthe town centre and would prejudice the potential development of the store which iswithin the town centre which would impact on the overall vitality and viability of thetown centre.

Whilst this is an outline application the submitted illustrative information shows a poorquality scheme and an insufficient archaeological assessment has been carried out.

The application is therefore recommended for REFUSAL.

9 RECOMMENDATION

1. Whilst the localised convenience goods retention rate is low within Soham and the townwould benefit from a foodstore of an appropriate scale to retain spending, the thrust ofboth national and local policy is that retail development should be focused in the towncentre. The application relates to an out of centre site.

The NPPF identifies the need for such sites to satisfy both a sequential test and impactassessment. Policies CS5 and CS10 in the East Cambridgeshire Core StrategyDevelopment Plan Document indicates that in Soham retail development should beconcentrated in or adjacent to the town centre.


The sequential test has not been met as there are alternative sites within the towncentre which are suitable, available and viable.

In addition, the proposed development would be likely to have a significant adverseimpact upon the proposed private investment to the Budgens store and draw trade fromthis store and would be unlikely to result in any linked trips within the town centre andindeed would be more likely to reduce linked trips. This would have a harmful effect onthe vitality and viability of the town centre which would prejudice the redevelopment ofthe town.

The proposal is therefore contrary to advice in the NPPF and also policies CS5 andCS10 in the East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

2. The site forms part of a larger site which should be developed comprehensively and thesubmitted information does not demonstrate that a supermarket of the size proposedcould be accommodated on the site whilst retaining important rights of way andprotecting views from the A142. In addition the use of a roundabout to gain access tothe site would detract from this gateway to Soham. The proposed development wouldtherefore be harmful to the character of the area and conflict with policies EN1 and EN2in the East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy Development Plan Document, prejudice theimplementation of the Soham Masterplan and policy SOH11 of the EastCambridgeshire Draft Local Plan Pre-submission Version (February 2013).

3. Insufficient archaeological investigation has been carried out to enable an assessment tobe made of the impact that the development would have on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset. It is not therefore possible to consider the proposal againstsection 12 of the NPPF and Policy EN5 in the East Cambridgeshire Core StrategyDevelopment Plan Document.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 <Sequential Test>

Background Documents Location(s) Contact Officer(s)

Application File Sue FinlaysonRoom No. 011The GrangeEly

Sue FinlaysonTeam Leader, DevelopmentControl01353 [email protected]