|
APPLICATION NO. |
|
|
SITE |
Land to the West of Wootton Road, Abingdon-on-Thames |
|
PARISH |
ABINGDON |
|
PROPOSAL |
The erection of a Class E discount foodstore with associated access, parking and servicing areas, landscaping, and associated works. Amended plans including revised landscaping, parking and retail information received 9 June 2021 and amended highways details received 5 August 2021 and 10 September 2021 and 29 September 2021. Additional retail information received 15 October 2021 |
|
WARD MEMBERS |
Margaret Crick Andy Foulsham Eric de la Harpe Robert Maddison Catherine Webber |
|
APPLICANT |
Aldi Stores Limited |
|
OFFICER |
Penny Silverwood |
|
RECOMMENDATION |
|
It is recommended that authority to grant planning permission is delegated to the head of planning subject to:
1. Completion of a S106 agreement with Oxfordshire County Council to secure a contribution towards travel plan monitoring and public transport services and infrastructure and the provision of a TOUCAN crossing along Wootton Road;
2. Conditions as summarised below: 1. Time limit for commencement 2. Approved plans
Pre-commencement Conditions 3. Slab levels to be submitted 4. Biodiversity offsetting scheme 5. Surface water drainage scheme to be submitted 6. Foul drainage scheme to be submitted 7. Landscaping scheme to be submitted
8. Landscape maintenance and long term management plan to be submitted 9. Cycle parking details to be submitted 10. Construction Traffic Management Plan to be submitted 11. Community Employment Plan to be submitted
Details to be submitted prior to occupation 12. Public Art strategy to be submitted 13. SUDS compliance report to be submitted 14. Travel plan to be submitted 15. Delivery and Servicing Management Plan to be submitted 16. External lighting details to be submitted
Compliance 17. Implementation of ecological mitigation and enhancement measures 18. Implementation of Arboricultural assessment and tree protection plan 19. Provision of rapid electric vehicle charging points 20. Noise levels 21. Implementation and management of landscaping scheme 22. Visibility splays to be provided 23. TOUCAN crossing to be provided 24. Building to be used for Class E retail foodstore only 25. Total Class E floorspace shall not exceed 1842sq.m and net sales area shall not exceed 1315sq. m 26. Class E floorspace shall be used for a maximum of 1052sq.m convenience goods and a maximum of 263sq. m comparison goods 27. No mezzanine or first floor level to be constructed 28. No subdivision to two or more units
Informatives 1. S106 agreement attached 2. Amount of biodiversity units required to offset 3. Land Drainage Consent 4. Consent required from OCC for works in the public highway 5. Groundwater Risk management permit may be required
|
|
|
1.0 |
INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSAL |
|
1.1 |
The application is presented to Planning Committee at the request of the Chair of Committee.
|
|
1.2 |
This application relates to a parcel of land located to the north west of Abingdon-on-Thames. The application site is the northern section of a field located to the west of Wootton Road and north of Copenhagen Drive. The A34 runs along the northern boundary in an elevated position. There is an existing field access to the site from Wootton Road in the north-east corner. On land to the east of the site and east of Wootton Road planning permission has been granted for 200 dwellings and construction is underway (application ref. P17/V1336/O and P19/V0169/RM). A site location plan is below:
|
|
1.3 |
The Proposal The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a Class E retail food store with associated access, parking and servicing areas, landscaping, and associated works. Vehicular access is to be taken from Wootton Road with a new access being created in the south eastern corner of the site and the existing field access being stopped up. The proposed building is to be located on the south west corner of the site facing east with car parking to the front and north.
|
|
1.4 |
Officers are aware that the end user is intended to be the discount retailer Aldi. The authority cannot however control the end user of the proposed development and therefore the application must be considered based on the use class applied for with no weight to be given to any intended end users.
|
|
1.5 |
The proposal has been amended following technical officer comments relating to highways, landscape, trees, and design. The latest plans are attached as Appendix 1. |
|
2.0 |
SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS & REPRESENTATIONS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2.1 |
A summary of the responses received to the current proposal is below. A full copy of all the comments made can be seen online at www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk.
|
3.0 |
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY |
3.1 |
P18/V2180/FUL - Withdrawn (29/01/2020) Development of 61 residential dwellings and associated works including design, access, landscaping and open space. As amended on 1 November 2019.
|
3.2 |
Pre-application History P20/V1923/PEJ - Advice provided (27/11/2020) Proposed new Aldi discount foodstore. Advice provided that whole site should be masterplanned with retail and housing together, retail sequential and impact assessment, highways, amendments to design, layout and landscaping.
P18/V0524/PEJ - Advice provided (07/09/2018) Proposed development of 104 dwellings on land west of Wootton Road. New access from Copenhagen Drive and public open space. Advice provided on appropriate housing mix, landscape requirements and discussions of constraints including noise and provision of suitable open space.
|
3.3 |
Screening Opinion requests None |
4.0 |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT |
4.1 |
The development is less than 1 hectare of urban development that is not dwelling house development. The proposal is not EIA development. |
5.0 |
MAIN ISSUES |
||||||||
5.1 |
The main issues are: 1. Principle of development 2. Retail Sequential Test 3. Retail Impact Test 4. Design, Landscape and Visual Impact 5. Flood risk and drainage 6. Traffic, parking and highway safety 7. Archaeology 8. Biodiversity 9. Impact on residential amenity 10. Developer Contributions
|
||||||||
5.2 |
The Principle of Development Section 38 (6) of the Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications for planning permission to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Section 7 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that the local planning authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations. The development plan for this proposal currently comprises the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and the Local Plan 2031 Part 2. There is no neighbourhood plan for Abingdon on Thames.
|
||||||||
5.3 |
Other material planning considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework, guidance within the National Planning Practice Guidance and the council’s adopted Design Guide and Developer Contributions supplementary planning documents
|
||||||||
5.4 |
Strategic Site Allocation The proposed site forms part of the North West of Abingdon strategic site that is allocated in the Local Plan 2031 Part 1 (LPP1) for residential use. The North West of Abingdon strategic site is allocated for ‘around 200 dwelling subject to masterplanning’ (Site Development Template, Appendix A of LPP1). Outline permission and reserved matters consent has been granted for 200 dwellings on the area of the allocation to the east of Wootton Road and construction is underway. This application site forms the part of the allocation to the west of Wootton Road.
|
||||||||
5.5 |
In accordance with CP4 of LPP1 and the Site Development Template, development on this site should predominantly provide residential uses and therefore this proposal is contrary to this policy.
|
||||||||
5.6 |
An application for residential development on the wider part of the allocated site to the west of Wootton Road, encompassing the entire field to the west of Wootton Road was submitted in 2018 (application ref. P18/V2180/FUL). Whilst the application was later withdrawn, during the assessment of the application it was demonstrated that the immediate north-east corner of the site could not accommodate residential development due to excessively high noise levels. As a result, during pre-application discussions for this retail proposal, officers advised that on balance a development of this section of the site for alternative uses, such as retail, could be supported so long as it would not prevent or be detrimental to the deliverability of residential development on the remainder of the allocation. Officers further advised that an application for retail development on this site should come forward as part of a full or hybrid application for a mixed-use scheme to provide certainty that residential development could be provided on the remainder of the allocated site.
|
||||||||
5.7 |
This application seeks full planning permission for a retail store only. The applicant states in the Planning Statement that they are not in control of, nor do they have a commercial position on, the remainder of the allocated site west of Wootton Road beyond the application site boundary. Whilst officers wished to see the whole site masterplanned and developed together, the commercial reality means that this is not possible and officers do not consider that the application for the retail store alone could be refused on such a basis. However it is critical that this application for a retail store does not preclude or is detrimental to the future delivery of residential development of the remainder of the allocation site. Officers consider this matter in further detail below with regards to access, connectivity, and noise levels.
|
||||||||
5.8 |
Retail Policy The settlement hierarchy set out in CP3 of LPP1 identifies Abingdon as a market town within the Abingdon-on-Thames and Oxford Fringe sub-area. Market towns have a range of services and facilities. CP4 states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development within the existing built area of market towns.
|
||||||||
5.9 |
CP10 identifies a large opportunity site in Abingdon town centre, the Abbey Shopping Centre and Charter Area as being suitable for retail-led development. The first part; improvements to the Abbey Shopping Centre, has been completed. The policy states that any proposals for redevelopment should ensure that the retail element of The Charter is maximised to ensure the vitality and viability of the town centre is maintained and enhanced over the plan period.
|
||||||||
5.10 |
CP32 of LPP1 has a town centre first approach and will only support retail development that is on the edge or outside a town centre location if it is demonstrated that the proposal satisfies a sequential test to site selection and, where the proposal is greater than 1000sqm (in this location) an impact assessment confirms that there are no likely significant adverse impacts on the vitality and viability of nearby centres.
|
||||||||
5.11 |
The application site is outside a town centre location and therefore both a retail sequential test and impact test is required to be satisfied.
|
||||||||
5.12 |
Retail Sequential Test Paragraphs 87-89 of the NPPF sets out the sequential approach for main town centre uses. Paragraph 87 states ‘Main town centres uses should be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations; and only if suitable sites are not available (or expected to become available within a reasonable period) should out of centre sites be considered. When considering what a reasonable period is for this purpose, the scale and complexity of the proposed scheme and of potentially suitable town or edge of centre sites should be taken into account’.
|
||||||||
5.13 |
The Planning Practice Guidance at paragraph 011 states that the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the sequential test, the requirements of which must be proportionate and appropriate for the given proposal. Applicants must demonstrate a certain degree of flexibility in terms of location and scale of proposal. Applicants must show that the suitability of more central sites to accommodate the proposal has been considered and demonstrate where there is scope for flexibility in the form of the proposal. The sequential test is passed whereby no suitable sequentially preferable sites are identified to host the proposed development.
|
||||||||
5.14 |
A sequential test has been submitted in support of the application and this has been assessed by an independent retail consultant on behalf of the local planning authority.
|
||||||||
5.15 |
The retail consultant agrees that concentrating the search for alternative sites on those in Abingdon is appropriate. The applicant has considered the following locations in their assessment of sequentially suitable alternative sites:
- The Charter Area and Abbey Shopping Centre - Cattle Market Car Park, Burgess Close - Abbey House, Abbey Close - Old Abbey House, Abbey Close - BT Telephone Exchange, Stratton Way - Upper Reaches Hotel, Thames Street - Former Bellingers Site, Ock Street - Royal Mail Sorting Office, Ock Street - J Sydenhams Builders Merchant, Ock Street - Fairacres Retail Park - North of Abingdon-on-Thames strategic allocation - Dalton Barracks strategic allocation - Peachcroft Local Shopping Centre
|
||||||||
5.16 |
The consideration of the above sites confirms that they are either unavailable and still in current use, of the wrong size and scale or not situated in a sequentially preferable location.
|
||||||||
5.17 |
With regards to Fairacres retail park which is also an out-of-town location, phase 2 of the redevelopment of the retail park is now fully let with no available units. Even if there were available units, whilst the retail park is approximately 500 metres closer to the town centre compared to the application site, it is not considered to be a sequentially superior site. It is not considered that locating the proposed store at the retail park would benefit the town centre through encouragement of linked trips anymore than the application site given that shoppers are unlikely to travel on foot between the two given both are more than a five-minute walk time from the town centre. It is not considered that the retail park is better connected to the town centre in terms of opportunities for linked trips and therefore there would be no benefit of locating the proposed store at the retail park (if a unit were available) over locating it at the application site and there would be no added benefit to the town centre in doing so.
|
||||||||
5.18 |
With regards to the Charter Area allocated for retail-led redevelopment, the library, health centre and day care centre are all currently occupied and in current use. There are currently no plans or intentions to bring the site forward for redevelopment and it remains in active use. It is therefore not considered to be available within a reasonable timeframe.
|
||||||||
5.19 |
The retail consultant also considered the site of the former Peacocks unit, 22 Bury Street in Abbey Shopping Centre but concluded that this site would be too small to accommodate the proposed development.
|
||||||||
5.20 |
Officers accept that there are no sequentially preferable sites that are both available and suitable to accommodate the application proposal and the sequential test is therefore passed.
|
||||||||
5.21 |
Retail Impact Test Policy CP32 of LPP1 sets a local floorspace threshold whereby proposals for retail or other main town centre uses greater than 1000 square metres (in this location) must provide an impact assessment to confirm that there are no likely significant adverse impacts on the vitality and viability of nearby centres as a result of the proposed development.
|
||||||||
5.22 |
Paragraph 90 of the NPPF states that an impact assessment should include an assessment of:
a) The impact of the proposal on any existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal, and b) The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and the wider retail catchment (as applicable to the scale and nature of the scheme).
|
||||||||
5.23 |
The applicant’s retail impact assessment has also been reviewed by the independent retail consultant on behalf of the council. As a result of the consultant advice received, the applicant has submitted amended retail information in June 2021.
|
||||||||
5.24 |
The retail consultant has advised that with regards to the first part of the impact assessment as set out in Paragraph 90 of the NPPF, the proposed development is not likely to have a significant adverse impact upon existing, committed and planned public or private investment in any centre in the catchment area of the proposed site. With regards to the Charter Area there have been no current plans in the public domain and no clear intention to bring the site forward for redevelopment. There is no other known investment in Abingdon town centre.
|
||||||||
5.25 |
Turning to the impact on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in town centre and wider retail catchments, the retail consultant firstly has acknowledged that the comparison goods floorspace associated with the proposed development goods is limited and is satisfied that any impacts arising from the diversion from comparison goods floorspace in defined centres would be very limited.
|
||||||||
5.26 |
On the impact on convenience goods, the retail consultant is broadly in agreement with the figures presented by the applicant with regards to trade diversion from the existing Waitrose, Tesco and Lidl stores in Abingdon. As such the retail consultant is satisfied that in-centre impacts arising from the proposed store alone are limited and not of a magnitude that could reasonably be deemed significantly adverse, and it is not considered that the proposal alone would have a significantly adverse impact on the overall vitality and viability of the town centre.
|
||||||||
5.27 |
At the time at which the retail consultant was assessing this application another application for a proposed foodstore at Fairacres Retail Park was being considered by the Council (application ref. P21/V0453/FUL). Planning permission has now been granted. If both developments were to be permitted the schemes may have cumulative impact implications in respect of trade diversion from existing convenience facilities within Abingdon. As such the retail consultant recommends that both schemes undertake a cumulative impact assessment considering both proposed schemes on the assumption that both schemes come forward.
|
||||||||
5.28 |
The applicant has submitted an amended scenario test to address the above concern regarding cumulative impact. This indicates that when considering the trading of Lidl at Fairacres Retail Park, Unit B at Fairacres Retail Park (recently approved) and this proposal the cumulative impact on Waitrose is expected to be -15% and on other Abingdon shops the cumulative impact is expected to be -2.4%. The total impact on the convenience turnover of Abingdon town centre is expected to be -9.7%. The retail consultant accepts these findings.
|
||||||||
5.29 |
The retail consultant advises that the impact on the Waitrose is relatively high and at a level which could be a cause for concern, but the necessary assessment is that of the potential implication of such an impact on the overall vitality and viability of the town centre. Despite this high level of trade diversion, it is not considered likely that the Waitrose store would close due to this proposal. Whilst there may be an element of reduced linked trips between the Waitrose and the wider town centre it is not considered at a level which could result in a significant adverse impact, particularly given the store is performing well against its expected benchmark average and the acknowledgement that overall convenience operators fared well through the pandemic.
|
||||||||
5.30 |
Considering the wider trade diversion impact on the total turnover of Abingdon town centre, the retail consultant has provided comments on the nature of Abingdon in that the potential for a shopper to visit the proposed foodstore and still visit the town centre is likely because of the provision of facilities such as a pharmacy, hardware store, opticians, bank, café and restaurants and the Post Office within the town centre. Based upon a health check carried out in October 2021 the town centre appears to be performing well despite the wider implications of the pandemic and is considered a relatively vital and viable centre. Therefore, the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on the performance of other existing operators within the town centre and the centre would continue to perform its localised role in meeting day-to-day convenience, comparison, and service needs.
|
||||||||
5.31 |
Overall, the proposed development is not considered by your officers to have an impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre to a level that would result in a significant adverse impact to warrant refusal of the application
|
||||||||
5.32 |
Design, Landscape and Visual Impact The NPPF considers the creation of high-quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities. CP37 of LPP1 states that proposals for new development will be required to be of a high-quality design that responds positively to the site and surroundings. Proposals are also required to be visually attractive, and the scale, height, density, grain, massing, type, details and materials should be appropriate for the site and surrounding area.
|
||||||||
5.33 |
CP44 of LPP1 states that measures should be sought to integrate development into the landscape character of the area and that developments should preserve and promote local distinctiveness and diversity.
|
||||||||
5.34 |
Landscape and visual impact The site comprises part of an agricultural field and has no specific landscape designations. Through the allocation of the site for residential development in the local plan it is considered acceptable for the development of built form in this location. The application site will be viewed in the context of the residential development to the east under construction, and existing residential development to the south. With the A34 in an elevated position to the north the site is viewed as a distinct edge to Abingdon. Of particular importance is retaining the character of Wootton Road as it leaves Abingdon and forming a transition from Abingdon to the more rural, green belt land beyond the A34.
|
||||||||
5.35 |
The Site Development template includes the following requirements for development on this site which are of particular relevance to this proposal:
- Provide appropriate setbacks from all physical barriers along the boundaries of the site - Plant a woodland belt and copse along Wootton Road to prevent visual intrusion on views through the A34 bridge in the approach from Wootton - Improve tree cover along the A34 boundary to screen the road and mitigate noise - Protect and enhance existing boundary features - Include appropriate landscape mitigation measures within the design to minimise the visual impact of the development on the green belt.
|
||||||||
5.36 |
The building is set back into the site along the western boundary. Clarification has been provided regarding the retaining wall running along the boundary with the A34 embankment to confirm that it will not impact upon the root protection areas of existing trees along this embankment which are important in maintaining visual separation between the A34 and this site. Whilst additional tree cover has not been proposed along the A34 boundary as required by the site template, officers consider that this is acceptable. There is already good tree coverage in the location behind the store. this area will not be publicly accessible and public views will be limited therefore the requirement to screen the road is less important than for residential development as are the requirements for noise mitigation as discussed in detail below.
|
||||||||
5.37 |
The existing hedge running along the eastern side of Wootton Road is to be retained except for allowing a new vehicular and pedestrian access. Further planting along this eastern boundary and in the north eastern corner is restricted due to an existing water main and a 10m easement running along the eastern site boundary in which there can be no planting. Additional trees have been incorporated into the north eastern corner and tree planting is incorporated into the car parking area to break up the mass of the area and soften the proposal overall. The retention of the hedge along the eastern boundary is particularly important to retain the character of Wootton Road as one leaves the built-up area of Abingdon and transitions into the more rural green belt land to the north.
|
||||||||
5.38 |
Amendments have been made to the landscaping and boundary treatments along the southern boundary following comments from the landscape architect, urban design officer and case officer. The interface of the southern boundary is important to ensure there is integration, connectivity and visual attractiveness between this site and future residential development to the south. A native hedgerow is proposed along the whole length of the southern boundary except allowing for a vehicular access to serve the retained farmland and a pedestrian link which is important for the future connectivity between the retail and future residential development. Post and rail fencing will also be sited along the southern perimeter except in the south western corner in which 1.8 metre close boarded fencing is proposed to secure the back of the store and also provide visual screening from the plant area and a 2.5 metre acoustic fence to screen the delivery area to contain noise in anticipation of future residential development to the south. This fencing will be screened by the native hedging.
|
||||||||
5.39 |
Design The building is sited along the western boundary, set well within the site. This location, coupled with the landscape measures to break up the car parking to the front of the store as discussed above, assists with retaining the character along Wootton Road.
|
||||||||
5.40 |
The building is largely rectangular in shape and is of an ordinary, functional design. It is to be single-storey with a mono-pitch roof sloping to the west. The north-eastern elevation will be predominantly glazed facing the car park. Following discussions with the urban design officer and case officer, amendments to the elevational treatment of the building have been submitted. It is now proposed for the elevations to be built using timber cladding and red brick to match brick types used in the residential development to the east of Wootton Road. These materials are more appropriate to the site’s setting at the edge of the settlement and with the surrounding area being predominantly residential.
|
||||||||
5.41 |
In addition, the pole sign has been relocated to just within the vehicular access rather than in the north eastern corner where it served little purpose.
|
||||||||
5.42 |
Overall officers are satisfied that the proposed development is appropriate to its setting and local character, it is set back from the important Wootton Road character, the amended elevational treatment helps to integrate the functional building into its setting, assisted with landscaping proposals to soften the scheme, enhance existing boundaries where possible and provide suitable integration with the future residential development to the south.
|
||||||||
5.43 |
Flood Risk and drainage A Drainage Assessment has been submitted in support of the application and indicates that the site is at a low risk of flooding from all sources.
|
||||||||
5.44 |
The drainage strategy proposes an attenuation type arrangement with discharge to a watercourse that is to be diverted running through the neighbouring development. At this time permission for this development to discharge into this watercourse has not been confirmed, the drainage engineer is content however that details of such an agreement, along with further details of the surface water drainage strategy can be provided by condition. In addition, the drainage engineer has recommended that a condition be attached requiring further details of how sustainable drainage measures for water quality improvement have been incorporated into the strategy.
|
||||||||
5.45 |
In addition, the drainage layout has been amended to avoid the need to remove a Chestnut tree on the eastern side of Wootton Road and part of the retained hedge on the eastern boundary of the application site. As a result the forestry officer has no objections to the proposed development.
|
||||||||
5.46 |
Thames Water have not raised any objections with regards to surface, foul and ground water or with regards to the water network.
|
||||||||
5.47 |
Traffic, parking and highway safety The application is supported by a Transport Assessment (TA). The highway authority has reviewed all of the information submitted and following receipt of amended plans raise no objections on highway grounds, subject to conditions.
|
||||||||
5.48 |
Traffic impact Having reviewed the traffic data submitted the highway authority is satisfied that the traffic generated from this proposed retail development will not have a severe impact on the capacity of the surrounding roads and the Wootton Road roundabout.
|
||||||||
5.49 |
Access The proposed main access is located in the south eastern corner of the application site formed with a right turn lane on Wootton Road. Pedestrian access is also provided into the site in this location, as well as an additional pedestrian access into the site further north along Wootton Road.
|
||||||||
5.50 |
Following receipt of amended plans the access has been designed to give priority to users of the existing cycle path along Wootton Road with give way markings to be installed for vehicles at the access. The priority to cyclists will help to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport as supported by CP35 of LPP1.
|
||||||||
5.51 |
The existing shared cycle/footway along Wootton Road measures 2.7 metres in width which is marginally below the 3.0 metre width normally required by Oxfordshire Cycle Design Standards. To achieve the additional 0.3 metres width on the cycle path would result in the loss of the existing hedgerow. A Thames Water easement prevents any planting in the area running behind the existing hedgerow meaning that it would not be possible to replace the hedgerow further back within the site. As discussed above officers consider the retention of the existing hedgerow is very important to the visual amenity of the proposed development and the character of Wootton Road in providing a transition from the built form of Abingdon to the more rural, green belt land to the north. Whilst officers acknowledge the importance of providing adequate infrastructure to encourage a modal shift to sustainable modes of transport, on balance the retention of the existing hedgerow is of such importance to negate securing an additional 0.3 metres width on the existing cycle path. The highway authority has advised that an objection on this matter could not be sustained and would not be defended at an appeal.
|
||||||||
5.52 |
A Toucan crossing is proposed to be installed across Wootton Road, this will be secured by a S106 agreement. In addition OCC have requested contributions towards travel plan monitoring and towards public transport, namely to be used towards improved bus stop facilities along part of Wootton Road to the south of the adjacent roundabout and/or Dunmore Road in the vicinity of the site and/ or to contribute towards the operation of associated bus services.
|
||||||||
5.53 |
Relocated field access Following receipt of amended plans, a field access to serve the remaining farmland to the south of the site is proposed to be installed within the site along the southern boundary. The highway authority raises no objections to the location of this access.
|
||||||||
5.54 |
Access to future residential development to the south As residential development to the south does not form part of this application, access requirements for it cannot be fully assessed however the highway authority have indicated that an access to serve such a development from Copenhagen Drive would be acceptable in principle, subject to a formal assessment in relation to location, design, layout and capacity. This means that such a development could be served from an alternative access and the arrangement of the existing access to serve the retail store does not preclude such a development coming forward.
|
||||||||
5.55 |
Car parking 118 car parking spaces are proposed to be provided including 7 parent and child spaces and 5 disabled spaces to DDA standards. The highway authority has confirmed this is a suitable level of provision.
|
||||||||
5.56 |
Cycle parking Whilst some details of cycle parking for both staff and customers have been provided this is not acceptable to the highway authority. The highway authority wishes to see 16 cycle parking spaces for customers to be provided at the front of the store for maximum security and 4 cycle parking spaces for staff. The submission of details for this can be required by condition.
|
||||||||
5.57 |
The proposed site plan indicates that four electric vehicle charging units will be provided. This will be secured by condition.
|
||||||||
5.58 |
Archaeology The County Archaeologist has advised that the archaeological evaluation undertaken has recorded only a small number of archaeological features in the form of two prehistoric ditches. As such no further archaeological investigation is required.
|
||||||||
5.59 |
Biodiversity The application is supported by an ecological appraisal and a biodiversity net gain assessment. The countryside officer notes that the habitats on site are not considered to be a constraint to development and impacts on protected species are unlikely.
|
||||||||
5.60 |
Following concerns raised by the countryside officer an amended biodiversity metric assessment has been submitted along with a phase 1 habitat plan of the site. In addition, a hedgerow along the southern boundary has been included in the landscaping plans. As such the countryside officer has concluded that while development of the site will lead to an overall net loss of biodiversity, this can be compensated for through biodiversity offsetting by condition to comply with CP46 of LPP1.
|
||||||||
5.61 |
Impact on residential amenity The nearest residential properties to the application site will be those currently under construction to the east of Wootton Road. It is also of importance to consider the impact of the proposed development on future residential development on the remainder of the application site to ensure that any noise generated by the proposed development will not increase noise levels on an already constrained site due to the proximity of the A34, Wootton Road and Copenhagen Drive.
|
||||||||
5.62 |
The proposed building will of course be visible to adjacent residential properties but officers do not consider that there will be a detrimental impact upon residential amenity in terms of loss of privacy, daylight or sunlight or from visual intrusion.
|
||||||||
5.63 |
Light pollution Whilst some lighting information has been provided in support of the application, there are conflicts between the proposed lighting and the proposed tree planting and the lighting plan has not been updated to reflect the most recent amendments to the layout and landscaping. As such a condition should be secured requiring details of external lighting to be provided to ensure it is appropriate in both design and light levels to the site’s setting and adjacent users to accord with DP21 of LPP2.
|
||||||||
6.64 |
Noise pollution A noise assessment has been submitted in support of the application and this has been updated following comments raised by the environmental health officer with regards to the appropriate target levels for mechanical plant in considering the future residential development south of the application site. The environmental health officer raises no objections and officers consider that with the noise levels appropriately restricted by condition and the acoustic fencing proposed to contain noise form the delivery area, the noise levels emitted from the plant will not be of a level that would exacerbate noise levels for future residential development to the south and the future design of this site to mitigate existing noise constraints.
|
||||||||
5.65 |
The noise assessment concludes that noise from vehicle movements associated with the use of the car park would not exceed existing ambient noise levels, therefore acoustic screening along the southern boundary is not required as mitigation for future residential development to the south. The environmental health officer is satisfied with the proposed 1.2 metre boundary treatment in this location which provides the most appropriate boundary treatment from a visual amenity perspective.
|
||||||||
5.66 |
Officers are satisfied that the proposed development will not have a significant adverse impact on residential amenity in terms of noise for existing dwellings and it will not exacerbate existing noise constraints for future residential development that would preclude such development coming forward.
|
||||||||
5.67 |
Developer Contributions |
||||||||
|
The NPPF advises that planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests in paragraph 204: I. Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; II. Directly related to the development; and III. Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
|
||||||||
5.68 |
Policy CP7 of LPP1 provides that development will only be permitted where the necessary physical infrastructure and service requirements to support the development can be secured.
|
||||||||
5.69 |
The following developer contributions are considered fair and proportionate and should be secured though a S106 agreement with Oxfordshire County Council:
|
||||||||
5.70 |
DP20 of LPP2 requires all major development sites to provide public art that makes a significant contribution towards the appearance of the scheme or the character of the area or which benefits the local community. The applicant has had initial discussions with the Council’s Arts Officer who is supportive of public art being delivered on site either being incorporated into the elevations of the buildings or within the grounds of the site to have the highest public impact. As such officers consider it appropriate for the provision of on-site public art to be secured by way of a condition requiring a detailed public art statement to be submitted rather than being secured in a S106.
|
||||||||
5.71 |
Community Infrastructure Levy A new Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging schedule has been adopted and implemented from 1 November 2021.
|
||||||||
5.72 |
CIL is a levy charged on new development in the district; the money raised will be used to fund infrastructure and support growth. In general, off-site mitigation would be sought via CIL and on-site elements and direct mitigation elements would still be sought via a S106 agreement and as such are listed in the table above.
|
||||||||
5.73 |
The CIL charging schedule identifies that supermarket development will be charged at a rate of £117 per square metre of floorspace (index linked as of November 2021). CIL will be charged for the 1,842 square metres gross internal floorspace proposed with a total of £215,514 (index linked as of November 2021).
|
6.0 |
CONCLUSION |
6.1 |
Section 38 (6) of the Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
|
6.2 |
The site forms part of a site allocated for residential development in LPP1, however it has been demonstrated in a previously withdrawn scheme that the north eastern corner of the allocation, i.e. this application site is unsuitable for residential development due to excessively high noise levels. Due to landowner and commercial interest issues, a mixed-use scheme across the remainder of the allocated site west of Wootton Road has not been submitted and officers do not consider that this application for a retail store alone could be refused because it has not been submitted as part of a mixed-use scheme.
|
6.3 |
A pedestrian connection point is proposed on the southern boundary to provide connectivity between this site and the adjacent site to ensure connectivity should residential development come forward to the south. In addition, an appropriate boundary of a mixed-use hedge with post and rail fencing is proposed along the majority of the southern boundary which is appropriate to the agricultural nature of the remaining land as existing but would also be appropriate should residential development come forward. Visual screening to the plant area of the building and acoustic screening to the delivery area is proposed to ensure this development will not detrimentally affect future residential development. OCC have also confirmed that a residential development could be served from a separate vehicular access point off Copenhagen Drive. Officers are satisfied that the proposed development will not preclude and is not detrimental to the delivery of residential development on the remainder of the allocated site.
|
6.4 |
Officers consider that the proposed development will not have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Abingdon town centre and there are no sequentially preferable alternative sites. The development will not impact upon highway safety and the development encourages a modal shift towards sustainable modes of transport. Overall, the development complies with the development plan and the provisions of the NPPF.
|
|
The following planning policies have been taken into account: |
|
CP01 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development CP03 - Settlement Hierarchy CP06 - Meeting Business and Employment Needs CP07 - Providing Supporting Infrastructure and Services CP08 - Spatial Strategy for Abingdon-on-Thames and Oxford Fringe Sub-Area CP10 - Abbey Shopping Centre and the Charter, Abingdon-on-Thames CP32 - Retail Development and other Main Town Centre Uses CP33 - Promoting Sustainable Transport and Accessibility CP34 - A34 Strategy CP35 - Promoting Public Transport, Cycling and Walking CP37 - Design and Local Distinctiveness CP38 - Design Strategies for Strategic and Major Development Sites CP40 - Sustainable Design and Construction CP42 - Flood Risk CP44 - Landscape CP46 - Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity
DP11 - Community Employment Plans DP16 - Access DP17 - Transport Assessments and Travel Plans DP20 - Public Art DP21 - External Lighting DP23 - Impact of Development on Amenity DP24 - Effect of Neighbouring or Previous Uses on New Developments DP25 - Noise Pollution DP26 - Air Quality DP27 - Land Affected by Contamination DP28 - Waste Collection and Recycling
|
|
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Abingdon does not currently have a Neighbourhood Plan
|
|
VALE OF WHITE HORSE DESIGN GUIDE
|
|
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS SPD
|
|
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 2021
|
|
PLANNING PRACTICE GUIDANCE
|
|
EQUALITIES ACT 2010
|
|
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 |
|
|
Author: Penny Silverwood
Email: penny.silverwood@southandvale.gov.uk
Tel: 01235 422600