Agenda item

(Wards Affected: Abingdon (Ock Meadow))

Councillors Matthew Barber, Terry Cox, Richard Farrell, Richard Gibson, Jerry Patterson and John Woodford had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee was reminded that the main concerns expressed when consideration of this application had been deferred at an earlier meeting of the Committee were flooding and retail impact.  In terms of flooding, the Environment Agency had been approached but had raised no objection and it was noted that it was intended that the applicant would undertake work to make an increased permeable space on the site.  The Environment Agency had requested that should the Committee be minded to approve the application, this be conditioned.  In terms of retail impact, Signet Planning had been employed by the Council to look at this issue afresh and had concluded that there were no suitable alternatives to the proposed extension.  There was a need for the proposal and even in the worse case scenario, it had been concluded that there was enough predicted expenditure to support both Tesco and retail in the town centre by 2011.

It was noted that an objection had been received from Threadneedle, the principal leaseholder of the Bury Street Precinct in Abingdon, expressing concern regarding the impact of the proposal on retail in the town centre, commenting that the proposal might jeopardise future investment in the Precinct.  It was explained that the proposed works to the Precinct had been examined by Signet Planning, but it had been concluded that the Stage 2 Plans for creating new floor space were not well enough advanced to warrant refusal of this application.  Reference was made to accessibility and it was commented that in the absence of any sequential site, there was no objection.

Further to the report, it was noted that four further letters of objection had been received raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report namely, retail impact; increased flood risk; increased traffic problems and the proposal being contrary to planning policy.

Furthermore, it was noted that a letter had been received from County and Town Councillor Lesley Legge objecting to the application, commenting that the proposal was contrary to Planning Policies; it was important to consider the application bearing in mind developments elsewhere, such as in Didcot; the increased need to travel by car; the detrimental effect on encouraging signs of improvement and vitality in Abingdon town centre.

The Committee was advised that a petition of 1,084 signatures had been received from Tesco shoppers in support of the application commenting that there would be an improvement in the shop environment, an increase in investment, increased jobs and a better choice for Tesco shoppers.

Martin Smith made a statement on behalf of Abingdon Town Council objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically referred to the vitality of the town centre, advising that the proposal was contrary to PPS 6 which set out that one of the key objectives of the Government was to promote the vitality of Town Centres.  He explained that it had been acknowledged that town centres suffered when development was out of town.  He reported that the store was the largest supermarket in the County and he questioned the need for the proposal.  He indicated that the closure of the garden centre would be a dis-benefit and that there would be increased traffic on the A34.  He commented that the traffic implications needed to be considered and expressed concern regarding the need to reduce reliance on car transport not having been considered.

Malcolm Moore made a statement on behalf of the South Abingdon Flood Action Group objecting to the application raising concerns regarding flooding; increased run-off; design; impact on neighbouring properties and inaccuracy of the drawings.  He suggested that prior to seeking to extend the store, the existing store should be made greener.  He further commented that the flood elevation scheme would result in an adverse impact on neighbouring properties. 

Jill Carver made a statement on behalf of Abingdon-on-Thames Chamber of Commerce objecting to the application raising concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on the vitality of the town centre.  She drew attention to the figures supplied by Tesco stating that there would be limited capacity for other retail in Abingdon up until 2011 and she emphasised that this would not allow enough expenditure to enable the town centre to grow.  She suggested that Abingdon would be severely limited on the number of businesses coming forward, as it would be found that Tesco would have eaten up any surplus capacity.  She expressed concern regarding the figures and drew attention to Nathaniel Litchfield Planning Consultant’s report which highlighted reservations regarding vitality.  She commented that the expected level of diversion to an out-of-town centre was a dis-benefit and that no measurement had been allowed for local situations, including the Abingdon Integrated Transport Strategy, the new Westgate Centre in Oxford and the current shopping development in Didcot, which she believed would all impact on retail in Abingdon.

Nick Cosford, Peter Wiblin and Dr Corragin were each due to make a statement objecting to the application but they declined to do so.

Mark Buxton, the applicant’s agent, made a statement in support of the application commenting that an independent consultant had been employed to consider sequential sites.  He advised that the results of this additional work had reinforced that there were no reasons to refuse the application.  He explained that the Environment Agency had no objection, stating that there would be an improvement and a reduced risk of flood for third parties.  He commented that there were no sequentially preferable sites available and that there would be no adverse impact even in a worse case scenario on the retail in the town centre.  He commented that there was a need for the proposal and that the objections were based on out-dated material or non-substantial evidence.  He explained that there was a need to have improvement to avoid ‘peak hours’ congestion.  Furthermore there was a desire to improve the appearance of the store; make enhancements to home deliveries; provide improved car parking; further reduce the risk of flooding; provide some 50 jobs for local people and make a significant financial contribution of £485,000 towards the Abingdon Integrated Transport Strategy.

In considering the application Members made the following comments: -

·                     The application was a departure from the Development Plan.

·                     The proposal would not benefit the area.

·                     The comments of the retail consultants were not based on actual information but suppositions.

·                     Signet Planning had acknowledged that much of the information concerning quantitative need was theoretical.

·                     It had been theoretically concluded that there was sufficient retail capacity and by 2011 there would be excess capacity which could accommodate the extension for convenience and comparison goods, but it had been acknowledged that this was not substantial.

·                     There was a difference of opinion on how the proposal would impact on retail in the town centre.

·                     There was a lack of evidence that developments elsewhere in Oxford and Didcot had been taken into account.

·                     Any surplus in retail was being taken up by those developments elsewhere.

·                     One of the District Council’s corporate priorities was to improve town and village vitality and this application was contrary to that priority.

·                     The proposal would undoubtedly have an adverse impact of the vitality of the town centre.

·                     The reduced use of the Council’s pay and display car parks from 41,000 to 35,000 per month was indicative of the decrease in retail trade in the town centre.

·                     The Nathaniel Lichfield figures had been prepared at a time when developments elsewhere were unknown.  The figures had been too high at the time and were now even more inaccurate.

·                     Trade in the town centre was reducing.

·                     The improvements to the Bury Street Precinct had not been taken into account. 

·                     PPS6 referred to 12 key indicators and there was no evidence to show that the tests had been met.

·                     Health of the retailers had not been looked into.

·                     It was suggested that some 50% of the additional theoretical trade would be diverted away from the Town Centre but that the Town Centre could still cope.  There was little evidence of this having been properly predicted taking into account the draw off of any remaining surplus to Oxford and Didcot.

·                     PPS6 gave clear guidance on measuring vitality and viability health checks.  It was explained that local authorities should regularly collect information on 12 key indicators.  There was no evidence that the proposal was not contrary to criteria 4 of PPS6 in terms of impact on town centres.

·                     If it was not intended that there should be more customers, why was there a need for increased parking.

·                     Accessibility of the site.  It was perplexing that a contribution of £485,000 was sought to improve the access to the site other than by car.  The application sought 180 additional car parking spaces (an increase of 25%).  The impact of this additional traffic had not been assessed and properly mitigated.

·                     The local and trunk road system was overstressed.  Specific schemes were not identified.

·                     An application for a cinema and restaurant on an adjacent site had been refused on the basis of increased traffic.

·                     The traffic improvements were unclear, it being noted that it was no longer proposed that there should be a dual carriage way along Marcham Road.

·                     The proposal and financial contributions would not improve travel by other means than the private car such as by bus.

The Officers advised that should the Committee refuse the application the exposure to costs could be substantial as there would probably be a public inquiry.  Officers confirmed that technical reasons to support refusal were needed.

In response to a question raised the Officers advised that the Committee would be unwise to depart from the guidance in PPS6.  Members were reminded that the figures provided had been reassessed independently and that theoretical predictions were not unreasonable as no one could predict the future. 

In response to a further comment made, the Officers advised that the information which formed the basis of the Local Plan was relevant and that figures were not updated as time went on.  It was explained that the plans for Didcot were known in 2004, but actually floor space was not.  It was commented that Nathaniel Lichfield would have made allowances for the development at Didcot as they had done for the development at Witney.

In response to a further question raised, the Officers advised that the Committee should not have regard to whether the application would be called in or not by the Secretary of State but should consider the proposal in terms of its merits.

The Chair proposed that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy), in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to approve application ABG/1615/51 subject to (1) referral of the application to the Secretary of State and to her deciding not to make the application the subject of call-in; (2) conditions, including materials, parking layout, landscaping, slab levels, details of works on permeability of the site, and to cover amended plans; and (3) a Section 106 Obligation to secure the financial contribution to ABITS.

In accordance with Standing Order 29(3), before the vote was taken, Councillor Terry Cox who was supported by one fifth of the number of voting Members present asked for a recorded vote.

The voting was therefore recorded as follows: -

The proposal was therefore lost by 11 votes to 3 with 1 abstention.

It was thereupon proposed by Councillor Richard Gibson, seconded by Councillor Julie Mayhew-Archer and by 12 votes to nil, with 3 abstentions it was

RESOLVED

that application ABG/1615/51 be refused with the reasons for refusal to be formally endorsed at a future meeting of the Committee, such reasons to include the following:-

(1)        the proposal being contrary to the Development Plan;

(2)        the proposal being contrary to PPS6 (planning for town centres) in particular to paragraphs 3.20 – 3.23 in that the development would have a harmful impact on Abingdon Town Centre and that the tests set out in PPS6 have not been met; and

(3)        having regard to the proposed substantial increase in car parking, the development would promote the increase in use of the private car contrary to the principles of sustainability.