ITEM 4DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

27 APRIL 2011

APPLICATION NUMBER: 11/00545/FUL

VARIATION TO THE EXISTING PERMITTED SCHEME (07/01159/OUT AS AMENDED BY 09/00485/OUT) TO EXTEND THE APPROVED AMOUNT OF RETAIL FLOOR SPACE BY AN ADDITIONAL 7,875 SQ M GROSS OF A1 NON-FOOD RETAIL ALLOWING THE INCLUSION OF MEZZANINE FLOORS THEREBY PROVIDING A MAXIMUM OF 21,813 SQ M GROSS EXTERNAL AREA (234,793 SQ FT) A1 NON FOOD OF WHICH UP TO 1,394 SQ M MAY BE USED FOR A1 CONVENIENCE (INCLUDING FOOD RETAIL) FLOOR SPACE WITH ANCILLARY A2 FINANCIAL SERVICES AND ANCILLARY A3 SHOPPERS CAFES

AT MK Stadium Site, Grafton Street , Milton Keynes

FOR Inter MK And The Aviva Property Investors Trust

Target: 13th June 2011

Ward: Bletchley And Fenny Stratford Parish: Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Town Council

Report Author/Case Officer: Alan MillsContact Details: 01908 252412 alan.mills@milton-keynes.gov.uk

Team Leader: Alan Mills Contact Details: 01908 252412 alan.mills@milton-keynes.gov.uk

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (A brief explanation of what the application is about, what the main issues are and the officer's Recommendation to the Committee)

1.1 The Site The site forms part of the Stadium MK site and is located in the north west corner, adjacent to V6 Grafton Street and the A5 Redmoor roundabout. Intended as part of the enabling development for the stadium, the site was granted planning permission 05/01548/FUL for a non-food retail warehouse comprising 9,293 sq m of building, 2787 sq m garden centre, and 1,858 sq m outdoor retail space (totalling 13,938 sq m).At that time, the intended development was for a bulky goods, DIY store but, following changes in market conditions, outline permission was granted under 07/01159/OUT for a retail store comprising 12,544 sq m non-food and 1,394 sq m food floor space. This permission was extended for a 5 year period under 09/00485/OUT, and subsequently planning permission was granted to install a mezzanine floor which increased the floor space by 7875sqm to 21,813sqm in total. This last permission is subject to Judicial Review, a legal challenge in the High Court.

(11)

Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report.

1.2 The Proposal Due to the Judicial Review which challenges the grant of outline permission 10/01594/OUT, the current application is a full planning application which allows all aspects of the development to be viewed afresh by the Council, and to take into account the aspects that have been criticised in the Judicial Review Proceedings, which are:-

1 Lack of Valuation information to demonstrate its enabling function 2 Failure to provide a EIA screening opinion 3 Failure to address the retail impact of the development 4 Failure to assess the sequential approach This full application now also includes full details of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of the proposed development which were previously reserved for subsequent approval. It is proposed to vary the permitted scheme granted under 07/01159/OUT as amended by 09/00485/OUT, and to add a mezzanine floor of 7,875 sq m within the (as yet unbuilt) retail building, thereby increasing the total floor area to 21,813 sqm. This is exactly the same floor space as previously permitted under 10/01594/OUT .

1.3 In addition to determining the acceptability or otherwise of the principle of the proposed development, this full application now includes full details of the design and layout of the proposed retail building which have also to be taken into consideration. The building will measure 165 m long by up to 85 m deep, and will be 11.4m high. It is to be constructed of silver cladding panels above polished black blockwork on the end elevations, and mainly glazing and panels on the front elevation. A colonnade of steel columns along the front of the building will carry a brise soleil and signage, 602 parking spaces are to be provided.

The application is accompanied by � Design & Access Statement � Retail Statement � Transport Statement � Flood Risk & Drainage Statement � Vegetation Condition Survey � Sustainable Construction Feasibility Report � EIA Screening Report

1.4 Main Issues 1. The balance to be drawn between conflicting planning policies L13, which

allows enabling development to secure the construction of the stadium, and policies TC1 and R1 of the Local Plan and advice in PPS4 that seek to strengthen the role of town and district centres as the centres for major retail and leisure uses.

2 Parking Provision 3 Design and appearance

(12)

4 Planning Obligations

RECOMMENDATIONIt is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to : 1. Referral to the Secretary of State 2. The completion of a S106 Agreement and 3. Conditions set out at the end of this report.

2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application)

2.1 National and Regional Policy PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG 24 Noise

2.2 Local Policy Adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011(saved policies)S6 Bletchley TC1 Character and Function of the Shopping Hierarchy R1 Major retail Proposals TC14 to TC16 Bletchley Town Centre L13 Multi Purpose Sports and Spectator Events Stadium D1 Impact of Development Proposals on Locality D2 Design of Buildings D4 Sustainable Construction T5 Public Transport T10 Traffic T11 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans T15 Parking Provision PO1 & PO2 Planning Obligations PO4 Percent for Art

Supplementary Planning GuidanceCMK Development Framework Central Bletchley Regeneration Framework 2004 SPD Parking Standards SPD Transport SPD Sustainable Construction

Core StrategyCS4 Retail and Leisure Development CS13 Ensuring High Quality ,Well Designed Places CS14 Sustainable Construction CS16 Delivering Economic Prosperity

(13)

3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (A brief outline of previous planning decisions affecting the site – this may not include every planning application relating to this site, only those that have a bearing on this particular case)

03/00866/FUL Comprehensive development comprising demolition of existing buildings and erection of: (1) multi-purpose sports and spectator events stadium/arena (including community hub and conference facilities); (2) retail supercentre;(3) retail non-food (diy) store;(4) petrol filling station; (5) media village (B1 space, hotel, health and fitness centre, and restaurants); and(6) two drive-through restaurants. together with parking, pedestrian/cycle/motor vehicle circulation, road junctions and extensive landscaping. Full permission is sought for items (1) to (4) and outline permission for items (5) and (6). Permission 07.05.2004

05/01490/FUL Variation of design layout to approved stadium building to include:1) incorporation of 200 bed hotel accommodation and health and fitness accommodation into main stadium, 2) internal and external design changes to stadium/arena building and profiling of landform to eastern side of stadium, 3) free standing mixed use building to include health and fitness facilities and retail (use classes D2 and A1), 4) relocation of permitted restaurant space (use class A3) into three free standing buildings, 5) relocation of permitted fast food restaurant space (use class A5) into two free standing drive thru buildings together with parking, pedestrian/cycle/motor vehicle circulation, road junction improvements off Saxon Street and landscaping full permission is sought for items (1), (2) and (3) and outline permission for items (4) and (5). Permission 07.02.2006

05/01548/FUL Erection of non-food retail warehouse, including garden centre, external retail area, parking and associated infrastructure. Permitted 03.11.2006

07/01159/OUT Erection of retail store to provide a maximum of 12544 sq m of A1 non food and 1394 sq m of convenience floor space with ancillary A2 financial services and ancillary A3 shopper’s cafe (outline) as variation of non food store permitted under 05/01548/FUL. Permitted 02.04.2008

09/00485/OUT Variation to extend time period to develop existing permitted scheme (07/01159/OUT) to internalise the external floor space to provide 13,938 sq. m. gross of retail floor space and extend approved range of goods to provide a maximum of 12544 sq m. of A1 non-food floor space and 1394 sq m. convenience floor space with ancillary A2 financial services and ancillary A3 shoppers café. Permitted 01.02.2010

(14)

10/01594/OUT Variation to outline planning permission 07/01159/OUT to increase the approved amount of retail floor space by an additional 7,875 sq m gross of A1 non-food retail with the inclusion of mezzanine floors thereby providing a maximum of 21,813 sq m gross external area A1 non food of which up to 1,394 sq m may be used for A1 convenience floor space with ancillary A2 financial services and ancillary A3 shoppers cafes Permitted 11.11.2010 Subject to Judicial Review

4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received)

4.1 Development Plans, Sustainability Requests a BREEAM Pre-Assessment form to show how BREEAM Excellent standard will be achieved.

4.2 Environmental Health Manager Recommends conditions to require a Construction Environmental Management Plan and limitation of hours of construction.

4.3 Crime Prevention Design Advisor No objection, subject to conditions requiring the building to meet Secured by Design standard and lighting of the car parking area

4.4 MKC Urban Design Have no objections but suggest the addition of some high level windows in the western elevation to provide visual interest and surveillance of the redway along Grafton Street.

4.5 Environment Agency No objections

4.6 Anglian Water Advises there is sufficient capacity to deal with the foul and surface water from this development and recommend a condition to require the implementation of the surface water strategy.

4.7 Highways Development Control IntroductionThe planning application is a full application seeking an increase in the A1 non-food retail floor space through the introduction of mezzanine floors. The last application to deal with this issue was 10/01594/OUT and since that scheme was approved by DC Committee a judicial review has been lodged.

Impact on the Local Highway Network My previous comments for 10/01594/OUT discussed the possible issues that may affect the local highway network. Since that time no material changes have occurred. The Transport Statement that accompanied this application refers to the evidence previously given and reaches the same conclusion. I have reproduced the relevant part of my comments below: -

(15)

Having checked the section on junction analysis I agree that the additional development has a minimal impact on the highway network. I also agree that the increase in background traffic (as a result of applying the latest TEMPRO growth factors) has more of an impact. In fact only an additional 8 vehicles at Redmoor roundabout can be attributed to the proposed development out of a total of 156 additional vehicles in the Saturday peak hour.

Looking at the Grafton Street / Stadium junction there are some high RFC figures but they are no higher than those that were forecast for 2007 year opening (LINSIG table 6.3/6.4). Queue lengths are forecast to increase slightly with the worst leg being Grafton Street south* (northbound*), having an RFC of 89% and a maximum queue length 27 of vehicles. It should be noted though that this it at stadium entry time with a capacity of 30,000.

The Saxon Street junction does show an increase in RFCs (LINSIG Table 6.5) but at year opening (2012) it is only 88% which is an acceptable level. There are small increases in queue length as a result but again it should be noted that this includes traffic attending a 30,000 capacity event.

The ATN was produced at the request of HDC to provide some validation to the previous survey data and growth assumptions. The ATN has shown that the factored* 2010 flows used in the TS are greater than the actual 2010 (surveyed) flows. I therefore concur that both the baseline traffic calculations used in the TS and the junction assessments undertaken in the TS are robust.*TEMPRO 5.4 adjusted NRTF growth factors applied to 2002 traffic counts.

In conclusion I am satisfied that the TS and ATN are robust and confirm that the changes to the traffic as a result of these three applications will have no appreciable impact on the highway network.

Car Parking As with the Transport Statement comments regarding the provision of car parking for this development were discussed for 10/01594/OUT. The parking levels shown for the current planning application have not changed since that application. Consequently I have reproduced my comments in relation to planning application 10/01594/OUT below: -

The latest masterplan proposals show that the site provides 3255 spaces compared to a maximum figure of 3973 spaces as per the 2005 standards. Whilst this could be viewed as a considerable shortfall (about 700 spaces) it must be borne in mind that not all of the uses will be taking place concurrently and the peaks of the concurrent uses will not necessarily all overlap.

These figures include the casino and associated leisure and retail uses. If those come forward as anticipated, i.e. with restricted (late) operating hours, there will be little or no overlap with the other major uses or the ones proposed here.

(16)

The TS cites the following points in respect of parking provision:

� The peak for the casino doesn't coincide with the Saturday peak period for the remainder of the site;

� The parking standards are generally based on single destination trips and given that the Stadium MK site provides a mix of retail and leisure uses this is likely to encourage cross visitation between uses on the site and ASDA/IKEA;

� The existing and proposed sustainable transport infrastructure will increase the mode share of PT, cycling and walking trips thus reducing reliance on the private motor car;

� The implementation of the match day Travel Plan will promote measures to reduce staff and visitor journeys to/from the site by private motor car and therefore reduce car parking.

Additionally I would add to these comments that: -

1. 30 out of a possible maximum 38 car parking spaces for disabled persons have been shown on the proposed layout.

2. The level of cycle parking has previously been agreed at the level shown (36 spaces). The majority of these are shown within the main car park but are adjacent routes that cyclists are likely to use to gain access to the proposed development. I have no objection to 6 of these spaces being located adjacent the staff entrance door as it is feasible that a proportion of employees of the development will use cycles as a form of transport to the site. It appears that all cycle parking spaces are of the cycle stand type rather than in shelters. For the avoidance of doubt cycle parking should be within shelters in order to provide full encouragement of this mode of transport. 13 powered two-wheeler spaces are shown adjacent the cycle parking spaces. Both of these facilities can be conditioned as part of any planning consent.

AccessThe main access to the car park is shown with a left turn in and left and right turns out. This is prohibitive and I see no reason why the access should not be 'all-movement. I therefore recommend that the access be revised to all movement with a give way approach from the north. This can be conditioned as part of any planning consent.

The submitted plans show a set of steps off the existing redway to the immediate west of the site. The structure of the steps should not encroach into the adoptable 1m wide margin associated with the redway and therefore will require re-siting. It is disappointing that the steps are not accompanied by a ramp as the lack of such a feature disadvantages both less ambulant persons and cyclists from gaining access to both this development and to the stadium site as a whole. It is appreciated that a ramp may not be possible at this location and the applicant should therefore consider whether pedestrian access should be allowed at all from this point. The design of the steps

(17)

should follow the guidelines set out in the Department for Transport guidance 'Inclusive Mobility' that a rest platform should be included for a flight of steps with this difference in level change. I therefore recommend that the matter of providing steps at this location be re-visited and if the conclusion is reached that they are required that the design should take note of the aforementioned guidance.

Pedestrian crossing points between the proposed development and MK Stadium are shown on a plan and area acceptable.

There appears to be no inclusion of a pedestrian constraint fence at the top pf the retaining wall between the landscape area between the redway and the car park to the immediate east of the application site. I therefore ask that the applicant be requested to revise the plans to show an acceptable form of pedestrian guard railing.

Service Delivery Vehicle Arrangements The plans shown that sufficient space has been allowed for articulated and other service delivery vehicles to manoeuvre within the main body of the service yard. Subsequent drawings show that the same vehicles have been afforded sufficient space for manoeuvring to the delivery doors of the retail units at the western end of the site. At the time of writing these comments a further plan showing a similar arrangement for those units at the far east of the development site is awaited.

A second set of gates is shown to a 'plant area'. It is unclear what level of vehicle access is required to this part of the development. Rather than have two sets of side gates, could access to this area not be taken from within the main service yard?

Stopping Up of Public Highway Part of the car park at the western end of the site is on existing public highway. It has been previously agreed by highway DC officers that the stopping up of this area is acceptable in principle.Members should be made aware that in approving this application they are also approving the principle of stopping up of public highway. As the stopping up is directly related to planned development the stopping up process should be that under S247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

ConclusionI have no objection in principle to planning permission being granted. However these observations highlight some issues that require the applicant to revise the submitted plans and I therefore ask that all of these be addressed. Subject to acceptably revised plans, full support can be given to the planning application subject to conditions

4.8 Highways Agency No objections

(18)

4.9 Senior Landscape Architect Is satisfied with the submitted landscape scheme

4.10 The Valuer Having reviewed the 3 confidential reports submitted to the Council by the applicant I am of the opinion that the proposal carries the ability to meet the Councils requirements to deliver the S.106 obligations.

The Valuation officer has confirmed that the documents submitted have satisfied him that the proposal holds the ability to meet the funding required to enable the completion of the Stadium Development and the quantum is no more than is reasonably required to do so.

4.11 Development Plans Manager Allocation on the Milton Keynes Local Plan Proposals Map

The Denbigh North Site is allocated for a multi-purpose sports and spectator events stadium on the Proposals Map. The site related policies are L10: Visitor Accommodation and L13: Multi Purpose Sports and Spectator Events Stadium.

The site is considered to be an out-of-centre location- “a location which is not in or on the edge of a centre but not necessarily outside the urban area.”(PPS4 Annex B definitions). The nearest centre is Bletchley Town Centre, approximately 1.5 km away from the proposed development.

Key Issues

A) Status of the Development Plan

B) The compliance of the proposal with national and local planning policy.

C) The impact of the development on the vitality and viability of other centres.

D) The compliance of the proposal with the sequential test. The applicant’s sequential assessment.

Comments on Proposal

These comments do not cover site specific issues such as parking and design or issues dealt with by other Council Departments.

A. The Status of the Development Plan.

The Development Plan for Milton Keynes currently consists of the South East Plan – the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England produced in May 2009 and the Milton Keynes Local Plan. Whilst it is clear that the Government propose to abolish regional policy; at the time of writing this report (April 2011), the South East Plan remained as part of the statutory development plan but its life is limited.

(19)

The South East Plan key diagram and diagram MKAV1 identifies Milton Keynes as

� A growth area where provision for 41,360 homes will be made between 2006 and 2026. (Policy MKAV1)

� A regional hub (policy SP2) a focus for major retail, employment, housing, and infrastructure investment

� CMK as a centre for significant change (policy TC1)

The Council’s Local Plan was adopted in December 2005. Key policies in the Local Plan such as L13, R1 and TC1 are “saved policies”

The Council is in the process of updating its Development Plan, it has submitted its Core Strategy, which deals with strategic planning policies, to the Planning Inspectorate and an examination into the Core Strategy will take place in July 2011.

Relationship of the Local Plan to PPS4

Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4) which was published on the 29th

December 2009, 4 years after the Local Plan was adopted, sets out the Government's comprehensive policy framework for planning for sustainable economic development in urban and rural areas. It is national planning guidance from which departure can be justified provided there are sound reasons for doing so.

B. The Compliance of the Proposal with Local and National Planning Policy.

The principle of enabling retail development at Denbigh North has been established by both:-

1) The adopted Local Plan (policy L13) which allows for enabling development at Denbigh North to fund the development of a football stadium (Stadium: MK) capable of accommodating up to 40,000 people (however, the stadium is not now to be built to this capacity) provided that it would not significantly undermine the vitality and viability of Bletchley Town centre and the potential social and economic benefits arising out of the development of Denbigh North are taken fully into account.

2) Previous planning consents at Denbigh North, including permission for the initial 13,938 sq m retail floorspace on this site.

National policy in PPS4 and the Council’s Local Plan policies (R1 and TC1) aim to focus the development of main town centre uses such as retail, leisure and entertainment facilities within centres or failing that on well located sites on the edge of existing defined centres. “Only if town centre or edge of centre sites are not available will out of centre locations be likely to be appropriate in policy terms, provided that they are well served by alternative means of

(20)

transport, and are acceptable in all other respects including impact.” (DCLG,Planning for Town Centres, Practise guidance on need, impact and the sequential approach para 6.1, p.33, December 2009)

To summarise there is a divergence in planning policy. On the one hand Local Plan policy L13 permits enabling development to facilitate the completion of the stadium in an out of centre location provided that it would not significantly undermine the vitality and viability of Bletchley Town centre. On the other hand Local Plan Policies R1 and TC1 take the town centre first approach to guiding new retail development.

Although PPS4 is more recent than the Local Plan, the local plan policies are still relevant as they accord with the spirit of PPS4. The policies in PPS4 relating to the sequential approach of development require development within the town centre first. It is only if town centre or edge of centre sites are not available that out of centre locations will be appropriate in policy terms, provided the proposal is acceptable in all other respects including impact.

Evidence has been submitted by the applicants agent applicant in the supporting retail statement (para 1.1, p.3) that this proposal “is intended to act as enabling development to allow the final phase of completion of the stadium and its facilities to UEFA Elite standards.” The agent also states “Without this enabling development, the required funding will not be delivered to enable the stadium to be completed to UEFA Elite Standards….A knock on effect of the stadium not being UEFA Elite Standard will mean that Milton Keynes will be unable to host UEFA matches and other major spectator events and will ultimately miss out on large amounts of income that could otherwise come to the city.

C. Impact of the Development

In order to fund the stadium a very significant amount of enabling development has been permitted at Denbigh as Table 1 illustrates :-

Table 1: Enabling retail development at Denbigh North

DEVELOPMENT AMOUNT OF FLOORSPACE in sq.m

STATUS

IKEA store 15,050 Open and trading ASDA Super store 13,390 Open and trading A1 retail floorspace 13,938 Not started

Proposed extension of A1 floorspace

7,875 Not started

Total amount of retail floorspace including

extension

50,253

To put this amount of floorspace into context the amount of floorspace at the CMK Shopping centre building and Midsummer Place is around 125,000 and 43,000 gross sq metres.

(21)

Local Plan policy L13 permits enabling development at Denbigh North provided it does not harm Bletchley town centre. Although the policy does not mention any other centre, the approach taken in this report is that the vitality and viability of other centres including Central Milton Keynes is a material planning consideration which should be considered.

The impact assessment submitted by the agent is based on examining the implications of the overall proposed development for 21,813 gross sq m of A1 floorspace including 1394 sq m of convenience floorspace with 11,504 sq metres of floorspace provided at ground level with the remaining floorspace provided at mezzanine level. (Retail report para 3.2, p.8)

The applicant’s agent has considered the impact of their proposal on existing, committed planned public and private investment in centres in the catchment area of the proposal. They conclude the additional floorspace proposed by the application would not prejudice the implementation of future investment plans for the development of CMK (Retail report para 6.17, p, 22).

Table 2 below illustrates the impact of the proposed development and existing retail commitments in Milton Keynes on the turnover of a number of retail locations in Milton Keynes. It brings together data from the submitted agent’s retail report and the Milton Keynes Retail Capacity and Leisure Study 2010 (MKRCLS).

Table 2: Turnover of stores for comparison goods expenditure at Denbigh North, Bletchley, IKEA, Westcroft, Winterhill and Grafton Retail Parks and CMK,

1 2 3 4 5 Location Total

turnover2008(£.m)

TotalTurnover

2016(£.m)

Impact of proposeddevelopment£M & (%)

Total trade diversionfromproposeddevelopment&commitments £.M & (%)

DenbighNorth 98.08Bletchley & Retailparks

73.0 80.4 -9.1(-11.3%)

-9.7 (-13.32%)

IKEA only 34.6 49.2 -9.3 (18.97%)

-4.9(-14.03%)

Westcroft 6.0 6.5 -0.3 (-4.92%)

-1.4(-23.05%)

Winterhill(Routeco)Retail Park

54.3 59.6 -14.8 (-24.87%)

-17.9(-33.03%)

(22)

GraftonRetail Park

14.2 15.6 -3.9 (-24.87%)

-5.3(-37.09)

CMK 1053.6 1242.9 -35.9 (-2.88%)

33.6(3.18%)

Notes

a) Figures in column 2 taken from Milton Keynes Retail Capacity and Leisure Study 2010. Figures in columns 2-5 refer to total forecasted spending on comparison goods (non-food items) at each location in millions of pounds.

b) Figures in columns 4 & 5 except for figures for Denbigh North are taken from tables 5 & 6 of submitted agent’s retail study

c) Figures in column 3 the comparison turnover of Denbigh North taken from submitted agent’s retail report and refer to the comparison turnover of the retail development permitted on site plus the mezzanine extension.

d) The impact of a retail proposal is normally assessed five years from the time the application is made.

e) Impact of the development has been assessed by the agent as the total trade diversion resulting from the proposed new development at Denbigh North (21,813sqm) plus new retail commitments in the Borough.

Table 2 summarises the findings of the agents retail report (para 6.51 p.30), which states the most significant impact of the proposed development is on Winterhill and Grafton retail parks, each with an impact of 24.87%. With other retail commitments, in terms of expenditure on comparison goods, the impact on the Routeco retail park at Winterhill at £17.9 m or 33% and Grafton retail park £5.3 m or 37%. Both these locations are out of centre retail locations which are not protected in planning policy terms.

Table 2 also demonstrates that the impact in percentage terms on Westcroft from this development is small at 4.92%. However when the impact from other permitted schemes is considered, the cumulative impact at 23.05% is high. Although the loss of trade from this proposal is small at £0.3M, in terms of comparison goods expenditure at Westcroft, the forecasted cumulative impact at 23% is high due to the small £6m estimated turnover figure given in the MKRCLS. However, it must be stressed that the majority of the impact on Westcroft is from existing retail commitments and not from the proposed development.

The impact on Bletchley and its retail parks from the proposed development is also significant and is forecast at around £9.1 million or 11.3% of turnover. The cumulative impact on Bletchley and its retail parks from the proposed development and committed developments is forecast at around £9.7 million or 13.3% of turnover. These figures combine the floor space in Bletchley town centre with the floor space in the surrounding retail parks. Bletchley town only accounts for 32% of the total floor space so the greatest impact will be on the out-of-centre retail parks and not Bletchley town centre.

(23)

The impact on trade in comparison goods at CMK is forecast to be small. This is because the agent is forecasting an increase in turnover at CMK from 2008 to 2016 of £189.3.m [1,242.9-1053.6=189.3]. This increase in turnover outweighs any impacts on CMK resulting from the new development at Denbigh North (£35.9 m) and new retail commitments (£119.9 m). Over the 2008-2016 period, the agents forecast a net increase in turnover at CMK on comparison goods of around £33.6 m [189.3-(35.9+119.9)= £33.6 m rounded] over 3%.

The impact of the convenience (largely food items) goods floorspace proposed is illustrated in Table 8 of Appendix 7 of the agent’s retail report and is expected to be small. The biggest impact is on the nearby out-of-centre Asda store at Bletcham Way at 5%.

The applicants state that “given the strong growth assumptions for comparison (non-food) goods over the plan period the overall impact on CMK and Bletchley is acceptable and would not seriously undermine their future vitality and viability, prejudice future investment in those centres, nor prohibit any other town centre development that may emerge through the Council’s LDF process.” (Retail study para 7.1, p.44)

Although under policy L13 enabling development is permitted at Denbigh North in order to complete the stadium, this was provided that it would not significantly undermine the vitality and viability of Bletchley Town centre. As table 2 shows the direct impact of the proposal at Denbigh on the centres of Westcroft and CMK is small. The impact on Bletchley town centre masked by the inclusion of retail parks. However, together with other retail commitments, the cumulative impact on Westcroft and Bletchley & its retail parks will be more significant, attracting footfall and comparison trade away from these centres and thus affecting their viability and vitality. The forecasted impact, mainly from existing retail commitments, on Routeco and Grafton retail parks is even more significant, but these are out-of-centre locations.

D. Compliance of the proposal with the Sequential Test

Under policy L13 enabling development is permitted at Denbigh North in order to complete the stadium. The applicants have submitted a sequential assessment as required by the more recent PPS4 and the relevant Local Plan Policies e.g. R1.

The sequential approach has been considered by the agent in relation to the whole of the development and the additional 7500 sq.m GIA (Retail study para 6.64). The agent has emphasised that the floor space applied for is required to perform its enabling development function of funding completion of the stadium to Uefa Elite standard. To perform the required enabling function a sequentially preferable site or sites would need to give up sufficient of their site development value to provide the enabling funding for the stadium. As the agents states (para 6.65, p.34) “It is clearly very unlikely that any private owned sites would be forthcoming on this basis.”

(24)

The agent has considered public sector landholdings and examined sites and vacant units in CMK and in Bletchley and edge of centre locations.In their summary and conclusions the agents say they have carried out a thorough sequential examination and have been unable to identify any sequentially preferable sites that are suitable, available or viable in the centres of CMK and Bletchley that would be able to perform an enabling role as required by Para 13.60 of Policy L13

If policy L13 was not applicable then the sites identified below would be considered sequentially preferable to the proposals at Denbigh North. However, officers acknowledge that none of these sites are likely to generate a capital receipt that would provide the necessary enabling funding envisaged by policy L13.

To reiterate, there is a balance to be drawn between policies TC1, R1 and L13 and the Committee needs to weigh in the balance between the positive benefits that would derive from the application of policy L13 against any negative impacts upon the centres as cautioned in R1 and TC1.

Sites which have been considered by the applicant but dismissed for the above reasons include:

� the eastern expansion of the main shopping building around John Lewis, which was the subject of a planning application for an extension to the shopping centre, has since now lapsed. The planned development is no longer due to go ahead, leaving the site available. The site is within the main or primary shopping area of CMK (policy CC1) and would be sequentially preferable to the Denbigh North site.

� the former Wyevale Garden Centre site. Identification within the Local Plan for a different use on this site is not alone enough to dismiss a site. This site is in an edge of centre location and is again of a suitable size and in a much more preferable location for the proposed development within the city core; both locations are more favoured by the South-East plan policy TC1

� the Food Centre and The Point (including car park), however both of these sites could have issues with regard to availability and viability compared with Denbigh North.

� the Co-op and Albert Street Bletchley. The previous Officer report agreed that the Co-op building would be too small to accommodate the proposed development, but the Albert Street Car Park site could provide a suitable site where the 7,875m² extension proposed could be included.

It must be acknowledged that the development of these sites would be unlikely to generate a capital receipt to enable the stadium to be completed.The applicants have not demonstrated any form of flexibility in their assessment with regard to scale, format, car parking or disaggregation

(25)

Thus while other sites that are sequentially preferable to Denbigh North have been identified above, these sites are unlikely to be available as enabling development providing the funds to complete the stadium.

Summary

The proposal provides enabling development to aid the completion of the Stadium: MK and facilitate the development of a multi-purpose sports stadium within Milton Keynes, complying with Local Plan Policy L13. The development is also expected to generate around 900 FTE jobs and generate additional jobs at the stadium and in the wider economy.

The stadium is an important part of the international sporting city concept in Milton Keynes Core Strategy objective 14 .The principle of enabling retail development at Denbigh North to provide the stadium has been established by both the adopted Local Plan (policy L13) and previous planning consents at Denbigh North, some of the units permitted as enabling development such as Asda and IKEA are open and trading

The applicants are of the view that the overall impact of the development is acceptable and would not seriously undermine the future vitality and viability or prejudice future investment in centres such as Bletchley or CMK. This assumes that there will be strong growth in comparison goods expenditure over the period 2011-2016. The analysis by the applicant’s agent suggests that as a result of the proposed development and committed developments, there will be a significant impact on the out of centre Routeco retail park at Winterhill at 33% and the Grafton retail park 37%.

The impact on comparison goods expenditure at Westcroft is significant. Although the loss of trade is small at £1.4m, in terms of comparison goods expenditure at Westcroft, the forecasted impact at 23% is high. However, it must be stressed that the majority of the impact on Westcroft is from existing retail commitments and not from the proposed development, which is only 4.9%. The impact on Bletchley town centre and its retail parks is not disaggregated. The cumulative impact is forecast by the agent to be £9.7 million or 13.3% of the turnover of the stores at these locations. However two thirds of the impact will fall on out-of centre retail parks and not Bletchley town centre.

This proposal is a major retail development located in an out of centre location although enabling retail development is permitted at this location under policy L13. Major retail proposals of this size are normally located within CMK or other town centres. The applicant’s sequential assessment fails to demonstrate that there are no suitable sites within CMK but Officers would however agree that the development of any of these sites would not generate a financial receipt to help complete the stadium.

On balance it must be decided as to whether the benefits of permitting this proposal in terms of the enabling development it provides for the Stadium: MK

(26)

and assisting Milton Keynes in developing as an international sporting city are sufficient to overcome any harm that might be caused to the viability and vitality of other centres such as Bletchley and Westcroft by a retail development of this size in an out of town location.

Conditions

Policy EC19 of PPS4 allows Local Planning Authorities to make effective use of planning conditions to prevent developments from being sub-divided into a number of smaller shops or units. This has already been utilised on this site whereby the permission for application 07/01159/OUT contained conditions that restricted subdivision to no more than 5 units at any one time and restricted the minimum gross internal floorspace of any unit to 929 m².

Normally, given the increase in floorspace proposed here, if permission were to be granted, officers would recommend a further condition be included limiting the amount of sub-division allowed. The applicant has stressed on numerous occasions that restricting the amount of sub-division allowed on this development could fundamentally alter the viability of the scheme and they have therefore requested that other than restrictions on the minimum gross internal floorspace of a unit (again recommended at 929 m²), no other conditions on sub-division be included.

4.12 Parish - Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Bletchley & Fenny Stratford Town Council agree to support this application but are concerned on how this new retail development will affect the retail offer in Bletchley Town Centre.�

4.13 Local Occupiers and ResidentsThe occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: Asda Store Bletcham Way Denbigh North Ikea Bletcham Way Denbigh North Mc Donalds and KFC, Stadium Way East Double Tree By Hilton Hotel Stadium Mk Stadium Way West DW Sports Stadium Way West Denbigh North 1-26 Peverel Drive Granby Bletchley Granby Mosque Peverel Drive Granby 1-231 Granby Court Bletchley Milton Keynes

Also notified Drivers Jonas Deloitte 66 Shoe Lane LondonWYG Environment, Planning Transport Ltd Midsummer Court 314 Midsummer Boulevard Turley Associates 25 Savile Row London W1S 2ES

4.14 Drivers Jonas Deloitte on behalf of owners of Midsummer Place CMK Object to the principle of development of 21,813sqm in an out-of-centre location. It is considered the level of floor space would have a negative impact on Milton Keynes town centre, thereby undermining national and local plan policies to support town centres.

(27)

1 Lack of Valuation Information Evidence to support the applicant's assertion that the quantum of development is necessary to deliver the stadium is still not forthcoming. The provision of this information is of utmost importance given that the enabling case is central to the justification for the development and to ensure compliance with policy L13. This information must be made available, if only in gist, so that a judgement can be made.

2 Failure to assess the retail impact The application now purports to assess the retail impact of the full 21,813sqm, instead of just the additional retail floor space being applied for. A number of more recent retail commitments are also factored into the retail assessment. While we accept this is an improvement, we remain very concerned that the applicants have grossly underestimated the impact on CMK. The applicant has claimed that there will be an impact of 3.18% on CMK, with most trade being diverted from existing and established out-of-town retail parks, particularly Routeco and Grafton. We are sceptical of this approach, not least because no end users have been identified for the scheme which has the potential to attract retailers more typically associated with the high street. There is a strong likelihood that the scheme could attract retailers usually located in town centres.

3 Failure to assess the sequential approach Whereas previously it was unclear, the applicant has specified the sequential approach has been considered on the whole floor area not just the additional 7500 sqm. The applicant asserts that it is clear from the valuation evidence that the floor space is required to provide only sufficient value to enable the completion of the stadium. We have concerns because the valuation evidence has been less than forthcoming. As a result there is insufficient justification as to why the additional floor space cannot be considered in isolation to remainder, and located in a town centre. The applicant maintains that privately owned sites are not suitable on the grounds that their development value could not contribute to the funding of the stadium. We have serious doubts as to this approach- rejecting sites on the grounds they cannot fund the stadium is contrary to local plan paragraph 13.60 and to PPS4, Policy EC17.

It is considered that: � The application is in direct conflict with PPS4 and adopted

development plan � The application represents an inappropriate amount of retail floor

space in an out-of–centre location � The applicants have failed to demonstrate the proposal will not have a

negative impact on CMK � There is no proposal to restrict the type of non-food retail goods that

can be sold. If granted , such a condition would be essential to avoid the sale of goods normally sold in town centres(clothing, footwear)

� The applicants have failed to provide the necessary evidence to support their assertion that the quantum of floor space is necessary to support the delivery of the stadium. Without this, it fails to meet the test

(28)

of policy L13.

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (The analysis of the issues which are critical, material, considerations and/or of greatest concern to objectors for the Committee to weigh up before making a decision)

5.1 Planning Policy In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have regard to all relevant considerations. Local planning authorities should, therefore consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of proposals which include long-term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer choice and more robust local economies (which may include job creation) and they should ensure that they give appropriate weight to the need to support economic recovery. This was expressed in a ministerial statement of 23 March 2011 and is likely to be incorporated into the emerging national planning policy framework. In this case the proposed development is assessed to create 900 full time equivalent jobs.

Local Planning Policy

As part of Milton Keynes Local Plan saved policy L13, Multi purpose sports and spectator events stadium, promotes the provision of a sports stadium on this site and states Enabling development will be allowed provided that:

(a) It would not significantly undermine the vitality and viability of Bletchley town centre

(b) The potential social and economic benefits arising out of the development of Denbigh North are fully taken into account.

This policy establishes the principle of allowing enabling development on site to fund the stadium construction, as an exception to other planning policies that would direct such development to other locations. Paragraph 13.60 states that: Enabling development will be necessary to fund the provision of the stadium.

It envisages that this enabling development may take the form of retail development or other town centre uses. In allowing enabling retail development to fund the stadium, it is acknowledged that this is at odds with other Local Plan policies TC1 & R1

5.2 The main aim of PPS4 in relation to retail uses is that they should be located in town centres first. Then only if there are no suitable sites available, should edge of centre sites be considered. Out-of-town centre sites are the least sequentially preferable. PPS4 is a material planning consideration. It is considered that Milton Keynes Local Plan policies are sound in that they still meet the spirit of PPS4, but greater weight should be given to policy L13.

Policy EC17 of PPS4 states that planning applications for main town centre 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:

(29)

� The applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach (Policy EC15); 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

5.3 Local Plan Policy R1 Major Retail Proposals, states: Major retail proposal, over and above existing commitments, will only be permitted if they satisfy the following criteria:

(i) The proposal would not undermine the Council’s development strategy

(ii) The proposal, either by itself or with other completed or committed developments, would not harm the vitality and viability of any town, district or local centre

(iii) In the case of developments within existing centres, the development is of an appropriate scale :and elsewhere, there is a quantitative and qualitative need for the proposal

(iv) There are no sequentially preferable sites that are suitable, available within a reasonable period of time and viable for the proposed development

The proposal would be accessible by a choice of means of transport and be likely to increase opportunities for one journey to serve several purposes

5.4 The Council’s retail strategy is defined in policy TC1 of the Local Plan, which sets down the character and function of the shopping hierarchy, and is reinforced, by policy CS4 of the Core Strategy. These policies identify Central Milton Keynes as the regional shopping centre for comparison retail floor space, and district centres (including Bletchley) as catering for the weekly convenience shopping needs of their catchment populations. It is to these centres, together with town and local centres, that new retail developments of an appropriate scale are directed. The Core Strategy Table 5.6 identifies the amount of additional comparison retail floor space needed as being

2011-2016 2016-2021 2021-2026 Central MK 23,200-43,300 61,400-78,200 61,000-83,200 Other district and town centres

4,100- 7,600 10,800-13,800 10,700-14,700

There is no allocation for retail development in out-of -centre locations. The existing permission for 13,938 sqm gross (12544 sqm comparison) floor space at the Stadium has already been taken into account when the retail study was done, and the above figures represent additional floor space needed for the plan periods. The development of an additional 7,875 sq m at the stadium would represent between 28.8% and 15.5 % of the predicted floor space needed for all of Milton Keynes between 2011-2016.

(30)

5.5 Denbigh North is not in a town or district centre, nor on the edge of a centre, so is classed as an out-of- centre location. Nevertheless, planning permission has been granted for large amounts of retail and leisure development, mostly as enabling development to fund the construction of the stadium and arena. The permitted developments include:

Gross Floor Area Sq M Status Ikea 19,861 Built. Originally 15,055

sqm permitted as enabling development.

Asda 13,990 Built as enabling development

DW Sports, retail and health club

4,646 Built as 50% retail, 50% gym

Hotel 200 bedrooms Built McDonalds 333 Built Kentucky 333 Built 5 Restaurants 1,495 Permitted, but will not

be built if the enlarged casino permission is implemented

Retail building (5 units)* 13,938 Permitted as enabling development

Casino and Leisure 9,600 or 12,435 Permitted, but not as enabling development

Restaurant/TakeAway/D1

730 Permitted

TOTAL 64,926 or 66,266**

* Application 10/01594/OUT to increase this floor area to 21,813 subject to Judicial review ** excluding casino/leisure building and hotel.

5.6 With this cumulative amount of enabling retail development (excluding the casino) it is clear to see the tension between the objectives of policy L13 to secure the building of the sports facilities, and the objectives of policies R1 and TC1 to direct major retail and leisure developments into town and district centres, to enhance their vitality and viability. It is the balance between these competing objectives that the Committee must decide.

5.7 PPS4 provides policy guidance on how Local Authorities should consider applications for main town centre uses that are not in a centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan. However, Milton Keynes Local Plan contains a site specific policy L13 which allows retail and other town centre uses as enabling development to deliver the stadium at this site, as well as policies R1 & TC1 which seek to direct such development to reinforce existing town centres. This proposed development can be seen as both conforming with policy L13 of an up-to date development plan, yet being contrary to the principles of policies R1 &TC1. PPS4 is a material planning consideration, but departure from its guidance can be justified if there are

(31)

other material considerations which outweigh it.

5.8 Policy EC15 of PPS4 advises that a sequential test should be carried out for applications for main town centre uses that are not in a centre. This is to ensure that all in-centre options have been thoroughly assessed, and that it has been demonstrated that no town centre or edge of centre sites are available, and the applicant has demonstrated flexibility in scale and format of the store floor space. A sequential test is also required by paragraph 13.60 of the Local Plan.

5.9 The application is accompanied by a Retail Assessment that carries out a Sequential Test to determine if there are any sites within, or on the edge of, a town centre that could accommodate a retail development of 21,813 sqm. This assesses the availability and suitability of sites in CMK including the City Core Quarter, the Food centre, the former Wyevale Garden Centre, the Point and adjoining car park, the Sustainable Residential Quarter, the Station Square Quarter, the former National Hockey site. It concludes that there are no sequentially preferable sites either in or around CMK, or in Bletchley town centre that is planned, available and viable to accommodate this amount of retail floor space that would perform an enabling funding role for the completion of the stadium.

5.10 This conclusion is not contested by the Development Plans Manager, who considers that there are some sequentially preferable sites which could be utilised but acknowledges and agrees with the applicant that these sites are unlikely to perform an enabling funding role. These include the extension of the shopping building, the Wyevale garden centre site and the car park site adjacent to The Point. The Bletchley Co-Op site would be too small to accommodate the proposed development, but the Albert Street car park site could provide a suitable site for the 7875 sqm extension could be included. However none of these possible sites are under the control of the applicant and are in separate ownerships. To perform the required enabling function, a sequentially preferable site would need to give up sufficient development value to provide enabling funding. It is very unlikely that any privately owned sites would be forthcoming on this basis to fund the completion of the stadium. Thus while they may be sequentially preferable in planning policy terms, they do not fulfil the enabling function that is needed to complete the stadium under policy L13.The two policy requirements are mutually conflicting and the Committee must choose which policy to afford greatest weight5

5.11 The Retail Assessment also contains an Impact Assessment, to see whether the proposed increase in retail floor space will affect the vitality and viability of town or district centres in Milton Keynes.

(32)

Table 5 of Appendix 7 gives the following estimate of impacts from the proposed development scheme on other retail centres for comparison goods

Zone Total Turnover£M

Turnoverofpermittedscheme£M

Tradediversionofpermittedscheme

Turnover of proposeddevelopment£M

tradediversion of proposeddevelopment

1Bletchleyand retail parks

80.4 5.6 7.0% 9.1 11.3%

2Westcroft

6.5 0.2 3.0% 0.3 4.9%

3WinterhillGrafton

59.615.6

9.52.5

16.0%16.0%

14.8 3.9

24.8%24.87%

4Kingston

25.6 0.8 3.0% 1.3 4.9%

5 CMK 1242.9 21.8 1.75% 35.9 2.88%

From this table of impacts, it can be seen that the permitted scheme under 0701159/OUT and 09/00485/OUT for 12544 sqm of comparison floor space, the development would divert £5.6M (7%) of trade away from Bletchley and its retail parks, and the enlarged scheme for 20,419sqm of comparison floor space will divert £9.1M, which equates to a 11.3% impact. Thus the increase in floor area would increase the impact on Bletchley and its retail parks by 4.3%. However the impact of the development is expected to be greatest on the out-of centre retail parks around Bletchley, rather than on its town centre. The impact on Bletchley and its retail parks is 11.3%. Although the amount of trade diversion from CMK is the largest at £35.9M, it only represents less than 3% of a trade diversion and will have no significant impact. The two retail parks in Zone 3 will experience nearly a 25% diversion, but both are out of centre retail parks which would not be covered by the PPS4 policy to protect the vitality and viability of town and district centres.

5.12 The Retail Impact also considers the cumulative impact from other permitted retail floor space within Milton Keynes in addition to this proposed retail unit at Stadium MK. This is shown in Paragraph 4.11, Table 2 of the Development Plans Manager comments. Taking this into account increases the impact on Bletchley and its retail parks from 11.3% to 13.3%, the extra 2 % impact being from these other permitted retail developments. The impact from this scheme alone is 11.3%

5.13 This application does not differ in floor area from the previously permitted outline application 10/01594/OUT, which is now subject to Judicial Review .Before that permission was issued, the Council’s resolution to permit was referred to the Secretary of State, who considered the relevant planning issues but did not view that intervention was justified as there was not

(33)

sufficient conflict with national policies or other sufficient reason to call the applications in for his own determination. The issues raised did not relate to matters other than of local importance.

This full application again applies for the principle of the same amount of floor space on the same site and raises the same planning issues, but with the addition of the full details of design, layout, landscaping. This gives the applicant and the Council the opportunity to more fully address the matters contested by the Judicial Review. These include a fuller assessment of the sequential test and retail impact on other centres, and a full review of the financial information submitted to address the assertion that insufficient was provided with the previous application demonstrating that this amount of development is necessary to enable the completion of the stadium. This additional information has been reviewed by the Council’s Valuation Officer who has verified that this amount of development is necessary to enable the completion of the stadium

5.14 The applicants wish to have the ability to subdivide the floor space into more than the permitted 5 units allowed under 07/01159/OUT, and want no restrictions placed on the number of units allowed, just the minimum size limit of 929 sq m for any subdivision. The creation of more retail units within the same building will could provide a more attractive comparison shopping destination, selling the same range of goods typically sold in a town centre, thereby competing more strongly with existing town centres. However, restriction of subdivision will affect the value of the development and its ability to complete the stadium. The floor plan submitted with this full application shows only 7 units, and while further subdivision is possible the shape of the building will probably limit subdivision to a maximum of 10 units. A condition restricting subdivision is not recommended. Representations from Drivers Jonas Deloitte advocate conditions restricting the range of goods to be sold, to minimise competition with goods typically sold on the high street. Such a condition will also affect the value of the development and its ability to complete the stadium, and is not recommended.

5.15 To be weighed in the balance of the possible impact on existing town centres is the potential benefits of seeing the stadium completed to its 30,000 capacity. The stadium and arena buildings are not complete, the car parking and landscaping have not been provided and the site has large areas that are not yet developed. This permission is expected to provide a quantum of floor space that is expected to deliver the funding necessary to complete the stadium to UEFA Elite standards.

5.16 The applicants have submitted three confidential reports to officers: � Davis Langdon report showing a schedule of works and associated

costs of completing the stadium to UEFA Elite standard, � Colliers report showing the anticipated rental values and land value

from the existing permission and the enlarged development, and � Another Colliers report showing gross and net development values

These have been examined by Valuation officers and their conclusions

(34)

confirmed. They demonstrate that the existing permitted retail floor space of 13,938sqm will not generate sufficient funds to complete the stadium but that the enlarged retail building will generate sufficient funds but no more than is reasonably required to complete the stadium.

5.17 The S106 Agreement attached to this permission (and previous permissions) will ensure that this development will only be capable of being implemented if the applicant can deposit the required amount of funding to complete the stadium to UEFA Elite standards in a secure escrow account. If the permission is unable to generate the required level of funding, the applicant will be unable to implement the permission and will have to approach the Council to discuss alternative approaches that may generate the required level of funding to complete the stadium to UEFA Elite standards. The Council will be able to consider such an approach on its merits at that time.

The completion of the stadium to UEFA Elite standard will form part of the S106 agreement.

5.18 Parking Provision and Traffic

The adopted parking standards are 1 space per 20 sq m for non-food, and 1 space per 14 sq m for food retail floor space, resulting in a requirement of 1260 spaces. However, a lower parking provision at the stadium site has always been accepted on the basis that not all activities will occur at the same time and shared use of parking spaces will happen.

5.19 This application shows the provision of 602 parking spaces for the proposed 21,813 sq m, equivalent to 1 space per 36 sq m. However, the masterplan shows additional parking spaces provided elsewhere on the stadium site through re-allocating former development sites for car parking.

5.20 Policy T15 (ii) of the Local Plan states that:

On site parking should not be reduced below the maximum standard if it would be likely to result in off-site parking causing problems that cannot be resolved by on-street parking controls.

Although the parking capacity within the application site edged red would fall below the adopted parking standards, the retail site forms part of the larger stadium site where the total capacity is shown to be 3238 spaces.1294 of those 3238 spaces will be allocated to individual units (including 602 for this unit). This will leave 1944 spaces for general stadium use.

5.21 On football match days, there is a tendency for cars to be parked by spectators in the surrounding Mount Farm and Granby estates. There is a combination of explanations for this

� The stadium car parking is not complete or properly laid out. � Even if it were properly and fully constructed, the capacity of 1944

spaces will not meet the parking demands of up to 20,000 current spectator capacity, and 30,000 projected capacity when complete.

(35)

� Car parking charges will deter some from using the proper car parks. These parking issues are confined to football matches and other large events and are not as a result of shoppers parking. The increase in retail floor space will not result in off-site parking.

5.22 The Highway Engineer is satisfied that the additional traffic flows from the extended store, combined with other stadium traffic, will have no unacceptable impact upon the surrounding highway network. His main concern is the management of internal traffic movements on match days, when shopper’s traffic may conflict with football traffic arriving or leaving the site. He recommends that a condition be imposed to require a revised Stadium Traffic Management & Spectator Plan. In addition a Travel Plan is recommended for the staff at the new retail units.

5.23 The Highway Engineer has raised detailed issues regarding the car park entrance alignment and pedestrian steps from Grafton Street. These matters have been referred to the applicants and revised plans received. The Highway Engineer has no objections, but recommends conditions.

5.24 Design and Appearance

The proposed retail building will be 165metres long and vary in depth between 65-78m and would be 11.4m high, although the ground floor level would be set below that of Grafton Street by up to 2.5m. The building will be positioned towards the northern edge of the site, close to the A5, with its service area backing onto the A5 embankment and the car parking in front of the building facing the main access Stadium Way West. It will be constructed predominantly of silver metal cladding, with a plinth of polished black masonry to match the stadium on the end elevations, and extensive glazing on the front elevation. A colonnade of grey pillars along the front elevation will support a protective slatted roof and brise soleil for shading. The appearance of the building is considered acceptable and will compliment the stadium and other buildings already on site,

5.25 The drawings show the building subdivided into 2 larger end retail units and 5 smaller units in the centre, although other subdivision arrangements are requested. These smaller units have their fronts set back to provide a pedestrian covered way with seating and tree planting. Pedestrian links to the rest of the stadium site and Grafton Street are proposed to be laid out in contrasting ground materials to the tarmac car parking spaces and roads. Full landscaping details are provided showing tree planting within the car park and tree and shrub planting around the perimeter. The layout and the landscaping are considered acceptable.

5.26 Planning Obligations

The existing permissions 07/01159/OUT and 09/00485/OUT are subject to a S106 Agreement which requires:-

1. Not to implement the permission until a binding contractual commitment

(36)

has been signed for the construction of the stadium in accordance with the Complete Stadium Specification, and approved by the Council and CNT

2. Once approved, on disposal of the property sufficient funds shall be held in a secure mechanism to enable InterMK to construct or procure the construction of the stadium

3. On implementation of the permission to pay to the Council i) £210,744 for off site highway improvements to the H10 or V7 ii) £200,000 for public art

4. Prior to first occupation of any retail unit to pay to the Council i) £104,329 for physical improvements within West Bletchley ii) £104,329 for a child's play area in Granby iii)£ 52,164 for inward investment iv) £40,000 for a pedestrian crossing on V4 v) £60,000 for an additional left turn onto V7, or provide the left turn facility.

5. Pay a carbon neutrality contribution of £200 per tonne of carbon

6. Pay a obligation monitoring fee of £400 per obligation

5.27 It is recommended that a similar S106 agreement is required to be completed for the current application. A former request by Thames Valley Police for £59,298 based on a floor space formula was not considered to reasonably relate to the proposed development, which is for internal mezzanine space within a permitted building, on a site already covered by 3 CCTV cameras

6.0 CONCLUSIONS (A summary of the officer advice to the Development Control Committee which is set out in the report as a whole on the appropriate decision, based on the policies of the Development Plan, taking into account the issues detailed in the report)

6.1 Planning permission can be granted for this additional 7,875 sq m of mezzanine retail floor space as part of the enabling development for the stadium allowed under policy L13, provided that the Committee is satisfied that there will be no significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of town centres such as Bletchley and CMK. The Retail Assessment shows that the likely impact on CMK will be around 3%, which will not affect its viability. However, the impact on Bletchley and its retail parks will be greatest at 11.3%, and with existing retail permissions the cumulative impact will be 13.3%. The out-of centre retail parks constitute the majority (68%) of comparison retail floor space of Bletchley.

The impact from this development on Westcroft will be 4.9%. However, with other permitted retail developments the cumulative impact will be 23.5% which is significant.

6.2 The completion of the stadium and its contribution to promoting Milton Keynes as an international sporting city must be balanced against the other national and local retail policies that seek to protect and enhance existing town

(37)

centres. The main aim of PPS4 is that major retail developments should be located in town centres first, then edge of centres, with out-of-centre locations only chosen if there are no sites available in the first two locations. This is reinforced by Local Plan policies TC1 and R1, and Core Strategy CS4. The stadium is an out-of-centre location, but enabling retail development is expressly allowed under policy L13. A sequential test has been done, and although there may be sites within the city centre or edge of centre, these will not provide the funding to enable the completion of the stadium.

6.3 The Committee should recognise that allowing large amounts of out-of-centre retail floor space could damage existing town centres by drawing trade away and by deterring future investment. Its impact on existing centres has been fully assessed and, while there will be some adverse impact on Bletchley and its retail parks; this has to be balanced against the desirability of completing the Stadium.

6.4 Planning and Valuation officers have seen confidential financial appraisals that demonstrate that the requested additional floor space will deliver sufficient funding to enable the completion of the stadium, but will not produce unnecessary profit for the developer.

6.5 If the Committee accepts that the benefits of completing the stadium will outweigh the potential harm to the vitality and viability of existing town centres, it needs to further consider whether to impose a planning conditions to prevent subdivision or limit the range of goods sold. In order to achieve the maximum value for the site, and to have the greatest chance of delivering the stadium completion works with this permission, the applicants do not wish to have any limit imposed on the range of goods or the number of units that can be provided, but only that the minimum size of any unit should be no less than 929 sq m (1,000 sq ft).The wording of Condition 5 reflects this.

6.6 A S106 Agreement is recommended to ensure that the funds generated by this enlarged development will secure the completion of the stadium to UEFA Elite standards, and to secure financial contributions to highway improvements, environmental improvements, workshop, art and carbon offset payments and obligation monitoring fee.

6.7 The key consideration is that this development will enable the completion of the stadium, as proposed in policy L13, and that this can be ensured through the completion of the S106 Agreement. Without this development, the stadium will remain partly complete, and the car parking and landscaping will remain outstanding. There will be some impact upon retail development in Bletchley town centre, but this is not considered to be so detrimental as to outweigh the benefits of achieving the stadium completion. However the predicted impact on Westcroft would only be significant when other committed developments are included.

6.8 The design appearance, layout and landscaping are considered acceptable

(38)

7.0 CONDITIONS(The conditions that need to be imposed on any planning permission for this development to ensure that the development is satisfactory. To meet legal requirements all conditions must be Necessary, Relevant, Enforceable, Precise and Reasonable )

( 1) The approved development shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings/details:

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in accordance with the requirements of The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment No. 3) (England) Order 2009.

(2) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions; to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the suitability of the development in the light of altered circumstances; and to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(3) The external materials to be used in the development shall be in accordance with samples to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the appearance of the locality.

(4) The maximum floor area to be used for convenience floor space within Class A1 use, excluding ancillary A3 shopper’s café, shall be 1394 sq metres and the maximum floor area to be used for non-food Class A1 shall be 20,044 sq metres.

Reason: To protect the vitality and viability of Bletchley Town Centre in accordance with policies R1 and L13 of Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011.

( 5) Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or subsequent replacement legislative provision, the retail floor space shall only be subdivided provided that the resulting units shall each have a minimum gross internal floor space of not less than 929 square metres,

Reason: To protect the vitality and viability of Bletchley Town Centre and in compliance with Policies R1 and R2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 Adopted 2005.

(6) The proposed finished floor and ground levels of the site, in relation to existing site levels, shall be constructed in accordance with the approved drawings unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that construction is carried out at suitable levels having

(39)

regard to drainage, access, the appearance of the development and in compliance with Policies D1, D2A and D2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 Adopted 2005

(7) The development shall not be occupied until the foul and surface water drainage has been carried out in accordance with the approved details and strategy, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding and to ensure adequate drainage of the site.

( 8) Prior to the occupation of each component of the development, a Travel Plan for that component shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in a format compatible with the iTrace software. The Plan should nominate for a Travel Plan co-ordinator, who will take responsibility for identification of required measures to provide and promote safer, more sustainable travel to and from the site by staff. The Plan for each component shall be implemented within 3 months of its approval by the Local Planning Authority, and shall be reviewed annually for the first 5 years and biannually thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To promote sustainable modes of transport other than the use of the private car

( 9) Prior to the first occupation of the development, a revised Stadium Traffic Management & Spectator Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and shall be implemented in accordance with the terms of the approved plan.

Reason: To avoid on-site conflict between stadium and non-stadium traffic.

(10) No part of the development shall commence until construction details of the access roads, parking and servicing areas for that component, and footpaths linking the development to the rest of the stadium site have been submitted to and approved by the Local planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the access, parking and service area have been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the development.

(11) Prior to the commencement of development, details of the cycle parking shelters shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved cycle shelters shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the building.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate cycle parking shelters.

(12) The development shall incorporate measures to minimise the risk of

(40)

crime and to meet the specific security needs of the site and the development. All security measures shall achieve 'Secured by Design' accreditation awarded by Thames Valley Police. Written confirmation of those measures shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before that part of the building is first occupied.

Reason: In pursuance of the Council's duty under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 and to reflect the guidance contained in PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development

(13) All planting in accordance with the Soft Landscaping Proposal drawing QD447_601Eshall be carried out within twelve months of commencement of development. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, severely damaged or diseased within two years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees or shrubs of such size and species as may be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the appearance and character of the area and to minimise the effect of development on the area.

(14) Before the development is occupied the ground surface areas around the building including roads, parking areas, kerbs, footways, terraces and other amenity surfaces, including areas for earth moulding and contouring, shall be constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory layout in keeping with the general amenity of the area and to provide a satisfactory setting for the development.

(15) A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to Milton Keynes Council for approval prior to the commencement of works. The CEMP should include Noise Action Levels (based on a noise survey) and other measures to minimise vibration and disturbance. Construction activity would be expected to comply with BS 5228-1:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. (Noise); and BS5228-2:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites (Vibration).

Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding occupiers during the construction process

(16) Construction activity shall adhere to the following hours for noisy working:-Monday to Friday: 08:00 to 18:00 Hours Saturday : 08:00 to 13:00 Hours Sunday and Bank Holiday : No working at all

Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding occupiers during the construction process.

(41)

(17) Before any building or other works commence on site details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority specifying the parts of the site to be used for site huts, storage of materials and plant and parking of employee's cars during the construction period, and any proposal for fencing of a site compound. A Traffic Management Plan, specifying the route to be taken by HGVs and heavy plant accessing the site, and holding positions awaiting access to the site shall be submitted and approved in writing. All vehicle routes and holding positions must be at positions away from residential areas, and vehicles must not wait on grid roads.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision in relation to adjoining property and circulation within the site.

(18) Prior to the occupation of each component of the development contain full details of sustainable construction of that component to show compliance with Policy D4 of Milton Keynes Local Plan shall be submitted to the Local planning Authority.

Reason: To minimise the environmental impact of the development in accordance with Policy D4 of Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001 - 2011.

(19) No other part of the development shall commence until such time as details of the proposed retaining walls/pedestrian barriers and steps adjacent the public highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the retaining walls and steps have been laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to minimise danger, and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the development.

(20) Prior to any development taking place, the developer shall carry out an assessment of ground conditions to determine the likelihood of any ground, groundwater or gas contamination of the site in accordance with BS 10175:2001 Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice. The results of this survey, together with any remedial action deemed necessary, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before works commence. Any remedial works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy and validated by submission of an appropriate verification report prior to the first occupation of the development. Should any unforeseen contamination be encountered during site works, the Local Planning Authority shall be informed immediately.

Reason: To ensure that the site is safe and suitable for its proposed use.

(21) The car parking areas shall be lit in accordance with the lux levels shown on drawing 10119/E/500, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority

Reason: To ensure the safety and security of the site.

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)