1

Schedule of Planning Applications Committee Date: 11 November 2014 Reference: 06/14/0109/F

Parish: Great Yarmouth Officer: Mr D.Minns

Expiry Date: 25-05-2014 Applicant: Pasteur Retail Park Limited Proposal: Demolition of existing warehouse & erection of 7 retail units (Use Class A1), restaurant & drive-through (Use Class A3-A5) with car parking spaces, covered cycle store & associated vehicle access upgrading, hard & soft landscaping and lighting Site: Pasteur Retail Park Pasteur Road REPORT 1. The Application Site 1.1 The application site is located on Pasteur Road on the south-western side of

Great Yarmouth. It is approximately 1km south-west of Great Yarmouth town centre and 400m from the A12 Great Yarmouth western bypass. The site extends to 2.46 hectares and is rectangular in shape. The southern half of the site is vacant scrubland and the northern half is occupied by a single storey warehouse building and car/lorry parking. The site has access onto Pasteur Road, which provides a link between the roundabout junction with the A12 bypass to the south-west and the junction with the town centre, North Quay and South Quay to the north-east

1.2 The site is bounded by Jones Way to the west and south-west, to the east by

Pasteur Road (A1243) and to the north by the existing Pasta Foods factory. A Tesco Extra store and petrol filling station is situated to the north-east. The recently approved pub restaurant The Grayling and Frankie and Benny’s currently under construction off Jones Way.

1.3 There are a number of other retail operators on Pasteur Road, including Matalan,

B&M,Lidl and Topps Tiles whilst the recently approved Hughes electrical building is currently under construction. Gapton Hall Retail Park is approximately 600m to the south-west and comprises a number of national multiples (including Boots, Brantano, Outfit, Next and TK Maxx). Pasteur Retail Park is located on the opposite side of Pasteur Road, off Thamesfield Road and its main tenants include B&Q and Argos.

1.4 The application comprises the following components :

2

- the demolition of an existing redundant warehouse unit; -the construction of retail floor space in two divisible terrace units; -the construction of a single storey drive-through hot food takeaway unit ; -the construction of a single storey restaurant;

-new roundabout access and the construction of associated external works, including car and cycle parking, landscaping, service vehicle access with yard areas and pedestrian routes

1.5 The application is accompanied by the following documents

• Retail Statement; • Design and Access Statement; • Statement of Community Involvement; • Transport Assessment; • Flood Risk Assessment, Surface and Foul Water Drainage Strategy • Strategic Flood Risk Assessment; • Ground Condition Assessment; • Ecological Survey; • Noise Report ; • Air Quality Assessment; and • Energy Statement.

1.6 This application follows pre-application discussions with the Council on 28 February and 28 August 2013 and public consultation, including a leaflet drop to local residents and businesses and Ward Councillors. In addition, the applicants state pre-application discussions have taken place with Norfolk County Council, Highways Agency, and the Environment Agency.

The Proposal 1.7 As originally submitted the application proposed a development with a maximum

gross external area (GEA) of 10,071m2, comprising Class A1, A3/A4 and A5 (drive thru restaurant) space. The scheme will be served by some 318 parking spaces, including 80 cycle spaces and disabled spaces).

Unit 1 (A1) Unit 2 (A1) Unit 3 (A1) Unit 4 (A1) Unit 5 (A1) Unit 6 (A1) Unit 7 (A1)

2,017 1,257 790 527 506 511 526

1,009 (Grd Floor) 629 395 264 253 256 263

3,026 (Mezzanine) 1,886 1,185 791 759 767 789

TOTAL (A1): 6,134 3,067 9,201

3

Unit 8 (A3) Unit 9 (A3/A5)

427 153

213.5 76.5

640.5 229.5

TOTAL (A3/A5)

580 290 870

TOTAL FLOORSPACE

6,714m2

3,067m2

10,071m2

1.8 Since the original submission following a review of the application by Strategic

Perspectives on behalf of the Borough Council the application has been revised. The applicant is still proposing seven non-food (Class A1) retail (warehouse) units and two (Class A3/A5) restaurant/fast food outlets, the key material changes to the application include :

o A reduction in the gross retail floorspace to 8,129m2, from the 9,201m2 originally proposed;

o A reduction in the net sales area to 6,910m2, from the 7,821m2 originally proposed;

o Mezzanine floors for the larger unit 1 (3,484m2 gross) and unit 2 (2,090m2 gross) only, with no mezzanine floorspace proposed for the other five retail units;

1.9 As originally submitted the application apart from the A3/A5 (hot food and drinks)

open A1 retail use which effectively meant that there is a limited restriction on the type goods to be sold from the premises would be similar to the Gapton Hall retail park which is not restricted by condition to the type of goods sold following an appeal and decision by the Secretary of State in the 1980’s.

1.10 The applicants have designed to units to be flexible to maximise potential for

retailers. The unit sizes reflect the intention to accommodate bulky, comparison goods retailers, whilst a more flexible consent would be sought for one of the units to allow for the sale of an element of non-bulky goods. As part of the amendments outlined above the applicants also expressed a willingness to accept a so-called bulky goods condition to limit the range of goods that can be sold from the premises and have suggested a similar condition imposed on the retail unit on the former Two Bears site closer to the town centre.

‘The premises hereby permitted shall only be used for the sale of bulky comparison goods consisting of building and DIY products, pets and pet supplies, furniture, carpets, floor coverings, household furnishings, homewares, electrical goods, vehicle accessories and parts, office supplies, hobbies/crafts, sports goods and kitchens/bathrooms and any other goods which are ancillary and related to the main goods permitted. The premises shall not be used for the sale of food or any goods not included in the first part of this condition and shall not be used for any other purpose within Class A1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification, without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority.

4

The reason for the condition is :- To allow the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the use of the store in order to protect the vitality and viability of Great Yarmouth town centre.’ Design Proposals

1.11 The Design and Access Statement states that there are 6134 square metres

of ground floor retail space in two terrace buildings, one of 4,064 square metres and the other 2,070 square metres. the retail terraces have been designed to accept the addition of mezzanine floor space and consent is sought for a potential to install a further 3,357 square metres at this upper level. Additionally two single storey detached food and beverage units are included, which are 427 square metres and 153 square metres respectively. the larger is a conventional seated restaurant and the smaller is a drive-through.

1.12 The highways authority has advised that the only point of access into the development and the adjoining factory that is acceptable to them is by way of the existing crossing on Pasteur Road. There is no realistic opportunity for a connection to Jones Way from within the site as the land between is outside the control of the applicant. As a consequence of this restriction, vehicle access to the adjoining Pasta Foods factory has to be shared with and built into the development proposals. A new roundabout is proposed.

1.13 There is a substantial existing sewer that crosses the site from the North West to the south east. The applicants state that an evaluation of diversion costs has shown these to be prohibitive.

1.14 The retail accommodation is designed as two long terraces towards the rear of the site. The terraces have been arranged to align with the Pasteur Road frontage. Parking is arranged at the front of the site and a service link provided for service access to the rear with two separate restaurant (one drive though) towards the front of the site. Visitors to the Pasta Foods factory (although the applicants say these are limited) will also pass through the retail park.

1.15 Units 1 to 7 would be positioned along the north-western boundary, separated by a service road and yard to the rear of the units. The larger Units 1, 2 and 3 would project beyond Units 4 to 7 to make best use of the site’s configuration, and to allow for the rear service yard. The service road would transect these units. The two smaller drive-through units (nos. 8 and 9) would be positioned on the eastern boundary, with frontage to Pasteur Road.

1.16 The service areas are secured by a 2m high paladin style fence. Covered cycle parking has been provided for 80 bicycles. Roadways are proposed to be black tarmac and there will be concrete to the service areas at the rear. Disabled parking are positioned very close to the units and dropped kerbs and blister paving is provided.

1.17 There is a pedestrian link across the front of the terraces which are covered by a projection which is a continuation of the main roofline. Secondary signage

5

will be located behind the colonnade which will limit the impact on the local environment.

1.18 A shared footway and National Cycle Network cycleway is on the western side of the A1243 Pasteur Road, connecting both south-west towards the A12 junction and north-east into Great Yarmouth town centre. The nearest bus stops to the site are located at the Pasteur Road/ Bridge Road/ Southdown Road junction approximately 600m (a 5-10 minute walk) north-east of the site access.

1.19 The buildings will be clad in a micro rib composite panel system or similar. The applicants propose a colour change to a darker tone across the front elevation to reinforce the appearance of depth to the colonnade. Entrances will have panels of full height glazing framed with polyester powder coated aluminium.

1.20 It is proposed that the existing trees will be removed to facilitate development with new tree planting to mitigate loss. There are no TPO’s within the site boundary. Along the Pasteur Road frontage, to the east of the development, the existing highway hedgerow will be retained and protected during construction work. Low landscaping treatments are proposed (such as mown grass or ground cover planting).

1.21 Two additional pedestrian access routes will lead into the site from the public highway near Units 8 & 9.

1.22 The proposed scheme will structure the southern and western boundaries of the site with a new native hedgerow and where landscape width permits a native thicket for a more substantial green buffer.

1.23 Triple skin roflights will be provided internally to 15% coverage of the roof area to get optimum ratios between internal lighting energy consumption heat loss and solar gains.

1.24 Each terrace is I approximately 9m high(to ridge) 30.5m wide and 67 m long The drive thru 17m long ,8.5m deep and 3.7m high. The restaurant approximately 23m long, 16.5m wide and 4 m high (ridge).

2 Background to the Application Proposal 2.1 The applicants in supporting documentation state that ‘Pasta Foods is the UK's leading dry pasta producer, and a world leader in the production of snack pellets. 2.2 The company, which employs approximately 140 people, has two other warehouse facilities in Great Yarmouth and another in Norwich. It also operates Waveney Mill at Southtown Road, Great Yarmouth. 2.3 Its current operation at Pasteur Road is outmoded; the existing factory building, adjacent to the application site, is no longer ‘fit for purpose’ and is in need of regular repairs and capital expenditure to remain operational.

6

2.4 This application relates to an under-utilised warehouse and scrubland adjacent to the existing factory. The warehouse was originally constructed for a particular product line; however the company no longer has use for it as part of the current operation. It considers that it is not commercially viable to expand the current operation onto the adjoining site or improve the current facilities. 2.5 The company plans to expand significantly over the coming years and to aid this

expansion it wishes to sell the site with planning permission, releasing capital to facilitate improvements to the wider operation.

2.6 The number of staff working within the warehouse at present is negligible and

Pasts Foods plans to retain these jobs as part of the company’s growth. 2.7 Pasta Foods has formally promoted the site through the Local Development

Framework process and Deloitte has submitted representations on its behalf in response to the following documents:

Local Plan: Core Strategy ‘Finalising Our Options’ (Regulation 18) – November 2012; and

Local Plan: Core Strategy Publication (Regulation 19) – September 2013 As part of these representations Deloitte made reference to the following evidence base documents: • Sustainable Settlement Study (November 2012); • Employment Land Study (January 2006); • Employment Land Update (November 2012); • Retail Study (2011)

3 Strategic Perspectives LLP (SP) 3.1 SP retail specialists were commissioned by the Borough Council in July 2011 to

update the 2006 joint Great Yarmouth Borough Council and Waveney District Council Retail and Leisure Study (GYBC/WDC RLS 2006). The updated Great Yarmouth Retail Study 2011 (GYRS) has subsequently been referred to by GYBC to help inform and guide plan-making and decision-taking pertaining to retail and town centre uses at the local authority level.

3.2 SP were commissioned to carry out an independent review and appraisal of the

retail planning matters on this application for a new 10,071m2 Gross External Floor Area (GEA) non-food retail park at Pasteur Road by Pasteur Retail Park Limited.

3.3 This advice was specifically to look into the retail planning assessment carried

out by applicant’s agents Deloitte in support of the application, as set out in their Retail and Planning Statements submitted in February 2014. In addition SP have also considered the supplementary evidence (including a health check of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston Town Centres) prepared by Deloitte designed to help inform the assessment of the application proposal.

7

3.4 Since the 2011 study was published, however, there have been some significant changes to the baseline assumptions and forecasts that underpinned the quantitative need (‘capacity’) assessments for new retail (convenience and comparison) goods floorspace in the Borough and its main centres and the SP were further commissioned to refresh the retail capacity forecasts to inform the local plan process.

4 Developer Proposal Consultation 4.1 The applicants held a pre-application event in accordance Great Yarmouth

Borough Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) which was formally adopted in March 2013 and applicants to demonstrate early and continuous stakeholder representation.

4.2 A public consultation event was held on Friday 10th January 2014, between 11.00

am and 7.00pm at the Pasta Foods factory. The key objectives of the of the pre-application consultation exercise to publicise the redevelopment proposals for Pasteur retail Park to enable the applicant to gauge support or objection to the proposal amongst local communities and key stakeholders prior to the submission of the planning application.

4.3 The documents submitted by the applications state that 75% of the respondents

(9) were supportive of the principle of the scheme and the jobs that may result from the proposal. 16% (2) were against the proposal. Environmentally considered an improvement in comments made, along with widening the retail offer. Loss of car parking for Pasta food was cited as a concern for 8 commentators.

5 Planning History 5.1 A application was submitted in 2005 for five Class A1 non-food retail warehouse

units with associated parking and servicing and highway works (ref: 06/05/0709/F), but was refused on the grounds that it failed to meet the sequential test requirements and key objectives of PPS 6 at the time.

6 Consultations

6.1 Neighbours/ Advert – The application has been subject of one letter of support and 20 letters of objection including: the Town Centre Manager; the Town Centre Partnership; and town centre businesses. Objections in the main are on the basis of the potential adverse impact upon the town centre and the 14% retail vacancy rate. In addition, Savills have submitted an objection on behalf of the owners of the Market Gates Shopping Centre broadly agreeing with the Council’s own retail consultant and the Town Centre Partnership. One in support stating it would be beneficial to the town (Copies Attached)

8

6.2 Town Centre Partnership – In summary –There is great concern amongst our members that the proposed development will have a negative impact on an already fragile town centre that has seen foot fall decline significantly as a result of similar developments on Gapton Hall, Thamesfield Way and Tesco. The fact that this development is not restricted A1 strongly suggests that it is intended to attract a town centre retail offer that will be in competition to the existing town centre, and may result in some of the current national brands to re-located to this development

6.3 With 14% of town centre retail units currently vacant there seems little justification

for additional out of town retail space and any new shops looking to come to Great Yarmouth should be encouraged to consider a town centre location to fill these empty units. The inclusion of 2 x A3/A5 units would also seem surplus to requirements particularly after the recent approval of similar units by the Council’s Planning Committee alongside the Marstons Pub and restaurant development just a few hundred metres from the site of this proposal.

6.4 Further comments were received following changes to the scheme as follows:

‘I can confirm that the Town Centre Partnership remains strongly opposed to the above development despite the amendments proposed at the meeting by Pasta Foods. I am of the opinion that the proposed changes to 3 x 20,000 sq ft retail units with 'bulky goods' restrictions reflect the only interest that the developer has had from retailers rather than any concern about the impact that the development would have on the town centre. Furthermore, I am somewhat sceptical that the potential tenants for the scheme that were revealed at Wednesdays meeting can be considered as true 'Bulky Goods' retailers using the Planning Portal definition "Goods of a large physical nature (for example DIY, furniture, carpets) that sometimes require large areas for storage or display" - as much of their product range is smaller homeware items e.g. cookware, tableware, linens, lighting etc that the large nature of their stores allow to be stocked in depth, effectively "Category killing" their smaller, independent trader competition. If anything Great Yarmouth town centre is now more fragile with the impending departure of M&S and recent loss of brands such as Thornton's, Stead & Simpson and Poundstretcher than it was when I originally objected to the above application on behalf of the Town Centre Partnership in March. The further addition of this vacant retail space must surely reduce any requirement for new retail space to be supplied for some time to come. I implore you to consider the very sound judgement by Strategic Perspectives that this development, even as bulky goods only, can only have a negative impact on the vitality and viability of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston town centres and recommend refusal to Development Committee members.’

6.5 Representation by Savills on behalf of Ellandii LLP - owners of Market

Gates Shopping Centre. Comprehensive Objections to the proposal and their summary and conclusions are reproduced below.

9

6.6 ‘In summary, our principal objection relates to the proposal’s compliance with the provisions of the NPPF and indeed the policies and guidance contained within adopted and emerging local policy documents.

6.7 Above all, we consider that this speculative proposal fails to comply with the

requirement to demonstrate that the proposed development will not lead to significantly adverse impacts upon Great Yarmouth Town Centre. Moreover, we find the Applicant’s approach to sequential assessment to be lacking given the speculative nature of the scheme.

6.8 Our overall conclusions with regard to the Application proposal are as follows:

o The proposed development is in an out of centre location and as such will serve to divert trade from Great Yarmouth Town Centre, including Market Gates. It cannot be regarded as ‘sustainable economic development’ as the Applicant so asserts. The Application will have a significantly adverse impact upon Great Yarmouth Town Centre;

o The health of the Town Centre is at a tipping point – it is in need of

investment which cannot be undermined by speculative retail applications in unsustainable locations;

o The Applicant is seeking an ‘Open A1’ planning permission which is wholly unacceptable particularly given that there are no named operators;

o The Application would lead to the redistribution of retailing in the Borough

to the detriment of the Town Centre – there is insufficient evidence to suggest that there is demand from new entrants to take occupation of the proposed retail park;

o The Application site is situated in a location where there is already a

critical mass of out of centre retailing. The creation of ‘destination retailing’ in this location will undermine the role and function of the Town Centre. Concerns regarding the increasing influence of out of centre retail in Great Yarmouth have been expressed by the Council in its emerging Core Strategy:

”The NPPF suggests that Applicants prepare impact assessments for edge-of-centre and out of centre retail and leisure developments over 2,500 sq m gross as standard, allowing for lower targets to be set locally if required. The 2011 Retail Study recommends that any retail proposal over 200sqm (net) in an edge-of-centre or out-of-centre location within should be accompanied by a retail impact assessment. This lower threshold reflects the current fragility of Great Yarmouth’s town centre which is being squeezed by Norwich’s increasing appeal as a retail destination, the movement of many high street ‘fashion’ stores to out of centre locations and the ‘ring’ of large food stores outside of the town which are impeding the flow of retail expenditure into the town. [...]”.

10

o The proposal will serve to undermine existing and planned investment in Great Yarmouth Town Centre at the expense of its ongoing vitality and viability. The Town Centre also performs a critical function in terms of servicing the needs of visitors and tourists which again would be undermined by the proposal;

o The Borough Retail Study identifies a significant amount of capacity for additional comparison (non-food) retail in the Borough up to 2031 (rising from 4,459sqm (net) in 2016, to 19,110sqm (net) in 2026 and 27,672sqm (net) by 2031). Based upon our own research, we consider this capacity to be an overstatement and masks the benefits of town centre consolidation and opportunities to improve the functionality of the existing town centre offer. These improvements will only take place if key stakeholders such as Ellandi have the confidence invest in the Town Centre. Where there is retail capacity, this should be located in the Town Centre as highlighted in the Council’s emerging Core Strategy;

o The Applicant asserts that that the proposal will aid future growth of the Pasta Foods Company which is located adjacent to the Application site. It also notes that the sale of the land with Planning Permission for a new Retail Park will fund this expansion. We would query the legitimacy of these claims, not least because the Applicant has provided very little evidence to support the notion that the proposal will directly fund the future expansion of the Pasta Food business;

o It also fails to justify why the provision of alternative employment generating uses or a mix of uses in this location as envisaged by local planning policy cannot be delivered. As such the Applicant unequivocally fails to justify the loss of employment land in this location in accordance with adopted emerging local policy (which should be afforded weight as a material consideration in the determination of the Application);

o The design of the proposed development does little to address the site’s gateway location;

o The Applicant’s approach to pre-application consultation was lacking;

o We have doubts as to whether or not the proposed access to the site is an

acceptable solution and that it will not have an adverse impact upon the existing highway network; and

More detailed investigation is required in regard to the ecological impacts of the proposal, before a planning decision is made. This is in order to ensure compliance with national and international biodiversity legislation. There are no overriding material considerations in our view that would render the scheme acceptable. The scheme is speculative and there is insufficient occupier demand to service both the Town Centre and Pasteur Road. The proposal will only lead only to the redistribution of employment opportunities in the Borough to the detriment of the vitality and viability of Great Yarmouth Town Centre.’

11

Further representation has been received from Savills on behalf of Ellandi ( full copy attached dated 29 Oct’ 14 ) below is an extract. The Applicant reiterates that the overall size of the scheme has been reduced by omitting the 50% mezzanine floors in Units 3 – 7 and that this represents a reduction in gross retail floorspace from 9,201 sqm (7,821 sqm net sales) to 8,129 sqm (6,910 sqm net sales). It goes on to state that the mezzanine in the Dunelm unit (Unit 1) is a specific tenant requirement and that a 930 sqm mezzanine floor is still proposed in Unit 2 (in anticipation of a possible requirement coming forward from an occupier of this unit). As per the Applicant’s commentary it is understood that the Dunelm letting is progressing through the usual legal channels and that the Applicant is expecting Heads of Terms on another large "bulky goods" (1,500 sqm -2,000 sqm) letting shortly (confidential at this stage). For the avoidance as doubt, the above commentary does very little to appease our concerns as to the impact of the proposed development on Great Yarmouth Town Centre. The proposal in our view remains contrary to national policy insofar as it will undermine investment activities in the Town Centre and divert trade to this out of centre location It should not be forgotten that the Local Authority’s own retail evidence base cites concern over the growing detrimental influence of the retail parks at Pasteur Road on trade in the Town Centre. These very points are currently being emphasised and pursued by the Local Authority at the forthcoming Local Plan Examination following an identified need to reduce capacity for retail uses across the Plan period (confirmed by Strategic Perspectives, the Council’s own independent retail advisor). For information, I would encourage you to read our response to the Inspector’s Examination questions in relation to this matter (enclosed). In addition to the above plan-making point, our rationale for this ongoing objection to the scheme on grounds of impact is as follows: The Applicant continues to assert that the scheme would allow for “bulky goods” operators to take space in Great Yarmouth who would otherwise choose not to be represented in the town.

o The Dunelm unit is not in our view what could be described as a traditional bulky goods retailer – an opinion which is shared by the Town Centre Manager who himself recognises that “much of their product range is smaller homeware items (e.g. cookware, tableware, linens, lighting etc) that the large nature of their stores allow to be stocked in depth, effectively "category killing" their smaller, independent trader competition”.

o The Applicant’s loose definition of the term bulky goods does not bode well

in terms of the prospective retailer it is seeking to attract for Unit 2 and which chooses to remain confidential at this stage. The Applicant should at the very least provide detail as to the type of goods that the prospective occupier is intending to sell – the Applicant’s suggested condition, as you will note from our observations below, would allow for all manner of items to be stocked.

12

o The reduction in floorspace does not reduce the impact on the Town Centre. It remains that the proposal will be creating a substantial amount of additional retail floorspace at Pasteur Road, the cumulative impact of which will, over time, erode the performance of the Town Centre and its ability to attract much needed investment.

We are also aware that in addition to Gapton Hall / Great Yarmouth Shopping Park, the freehold interest of Pasteur Retail Park is now being marketed. Interrogation of the particulars has revealed that the B&Q has the potential to be downsized and the builders yard developed in order to create new retail units – this is identified as a prime development opportunity that could be exploited with the potential to accommodate Dunelm if necessary:

o “We would highlight that in 2008, planning consent was obtained facilitating a downsize of B&Q into a unit of 50,000 sqft with the balance of space providing two units together with three additional retail units on the current builders compound. Given the increasing desire for B&Q to rationalise their occupational space, we believe that in due course this is an opportunity which could be exploited.....Should the proposed development situated on the opposite side of Pasteur Road not proceed, then any potential demand from the likes of Dunelm could then be accommodated”.

o We are not suggesting that the B&Q opportunity would need to be looked

at as part of a sequential assessment (it is, after all, to be regarded as equivalent in terms of its sequential status); rather it is considered that occupation of part of the B&Q unit would be far less damaging to the Town Centre than an additional injection of +8,000 sq m of new retail floorspace at the Pasta Foods site. Our rationale being that incremental changes to existing provision (through reconfiguration) would be far less damaging than the threat of additional retail floorspace which has the potential to be opened up over time through alterations to planning permissions. Moreover, that the opportunities present at Pasteur Retail Park, if brought forward after permission is granted at the Pasta Foods site, would present an additional and unacceptable cumulative threat to the Town Centre.

o The amount of retail provision proposed is also more than that required up

to 2031. This has direct implications for the soundness of the Local Plan that is due to undergo examination in November

o It is our strong view that Pasteur Road Retail Park (alongside other, vacant

retail warehouses in Great Yarmouth including the former Bennetts Electrical unit) is an established out of centre shopping facility which is capable (through careful planning and reconfiguration subject to appropriate impact analysis) of accommodating any latent demand in the town for retailers whose business model, with appropriate flexibility applied, dictates that they cannot take space in town centre locations (if this exists) or who have been displaced from elsewhere.

13

o The proposed development at the Pasta Foods site provides far too great an opportunity for the likes of Gapton Hall / Great Yarmouth Shopping Park to dislodge existing bulky goods retailers and in turn attract town centre retailers which, alongside existing provision, is likely to create an unacceptable critical mass of retail warehousing at Pasteur Road.

o It is understood that the Applicant is in advanced discussions with Burger

King and Costa Coffee to take occupation of Units 8 and 9. We are concerned by this latest development, not least because both outlets are represented in the Town Centre, are relatively new to the Centre and have made substantial inroads in terms of improving customer dwell time. Moreover, they have assisted in allowing the Centre to survive as a community facility – a loss of trade as a result of customers choosing to visit the outlets at the Pasta Foods site instead is therefore concerning. At the very least we would welcome confirmation from the Applicant (in the form of evidence from the two operators) that the existing outlets in the Town Centre will remain trading if they were to open on the Pasta Foods site. However, even if confirmed, it does not address the principal objection that food and beverage uses in this location represent the further erosion of the need to visit Great Yarmouth Town Centre.

The letter continues on to address to the condition proposed by the applicants and its limitation and what in their opinion would be required by a combination of condition and legal agreement to fully control the development should Members be minded to approve the application citing what has been used elsewhere.whilst strongly maintaining their view that the application should be permitted We would be grateful if final draft conditions and form of wording in the Section 106 could be made available for us for review prior to the Application going to Committee (regardless of the officer’s recommendation). Any wording in regard to the sale of food should also be forthcoming.’

6.9 Highways Agency – Holding direction until 17 October 2014 (recently

withdrawn) update 6.10 Further to our previous correspondence you will be pleased to know we have

resolved all outstanding issues in relation to this application with the developer's consultants Peter Brett Associates and as such please find enclosed a TR110 which replaces our holding direction with a direction those conditions are attached to any planning permission granted

6.11 Our main concern centred around the impact of the development on the part

signalised A12/A1243 roundabout and whether this impact was considered severe to the point that mitigation would be required. Working with the developer we have been able to manage the trip generation from the development by the use of the Travel Plan condition that forms part of this response, to the point that

14

the development impact is limited to a typical increase of 2-3% in terms of saturation on the trunk road arm of the roundabout. We are aware that this junction is operating close to capacity and there are significant queues on the A12 south approach however the additional traffic as part of this development is below the level that we would be seeking mitigation. You may wish to note that there are more significant increases on the local road network {particularly Gapton Hall Road) however we are not able to comment further on this.

6.12 In addition we. also recommend that a bulky goods restriction is placed on the

development by yourselves so that the premises permitted shall only be used for the sale of bulky comparison goods consisting of building and DIY products, pets and pet supplies, furniture, carpets, floor coverings, household furnishings, homewares, electrical goods, vehicle accessories and parts, office supplies, hobbies/crafts, sports goods and kitchen/bathrooms and any other goods which are ancillary and related to the main goods permitted.

6.13 Please find attached the TR110 directing that the condition detailed be

attached to any planning permission granted. 6.14 Notice is hereby given under • the Town and Country Planning (Development

Management Procedure) (England) Order2010 that the Secretary of State for Transport:-

c) Directs conditions to be attached to any planning permission which may be granted. Conditions to be attached to any grant of planning permission:

A comprehensive travel plan should be developed and agreed with Norfolk County Council. 6.15 Norfolk County Highways – Further to our response dated 5 March 2014,

we have been liaising with the applicants transport consultants and are now in a position to formally respond.

6.16 The access will be via a roundabout and an indicative scheme with safety

audits has been submitted. The delivery of the roundabout and other associated highway works will be via Section 278 and the off-site works are conditioned below.

6.17 The Highway Authority does have concerns regarding the layout and in

particular the car parking. It is felt that the distribution of car parking is particularly uneven between the northern and southern sections of the site and there will be very little space for shoppers and visitors in the northern section. There is also poor connectivity for pedestrians between the southern and northern sections. However, the issues with the layout are not likely to have so severe an impact that a highway objection would be raised.

6.18 There will be an area wide travel plan which will serve all the commercial

units. This is also conditioned below. In addition there will need to be a Travel Plan Bond of £75,000 which should be secured via a Section 106 Agreement.

15

This should be done prior to any permission being issued. Therefore provided the S106 is secured prior to any permission being issued, the Highway Authority has no objection subject to the following conditions:- ( See attached letter including conditions)

6.19 Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service – ‘A fire hydrant is required on site (at the

applicants expense) details of the location to be agreed before the commencement of development and a condition is required on any pp to cover this.’

6.20 Environment Agency – We consider that planning permission should only be

granted to the proposed development if the following planning conditions are imposed as set out below

6.21 Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the

site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

6.22 The scheme shall also include: Calculations to demonstrate that the proposed

surface water management scheme has been adequately sized to accommodate the critical duration 1 in 100 year rainfall event including allowances for climate change without causing nuisance or damage. The management strategy should consider both storage and conveyance of surface water.

6.23 Plans and drawings showing the locations and dimensions of all aspects of

the proposed surface water management scheme. The submitted plans should demonstrate that the proposed drainage layout will perform as intended based on the topography of the site and the location of the proposed surface water management features. In addition, full design details, including cross sections of any proposed attenuation features will be required.

6.24 Confirmation that in the event of exceedance flows that surpass the critical duration rainfall event or a blockage/failure occurs within the drainage network any proposed features should incorporate an emergency spillway as part of their design. We suggest that the emergency spillway directs any exceedance flows away from the development.

6.25 Confirmation that flood risk will not be increased elsewhere and sufficient

information to demonstrate that people and property will be kept safe from flooding, with consideration given to overland flow routing where required.

6.26 Details of the future adoption and maintenance of all aspects of the surface

water drainage strategy. The local planning authority should be satisfied that arrangements are in place for the long term maintenance and management of the surface water management scheme.

16

6.27 Confirmation of the Waveney Lower Yare and Lothingland Internal Drainage Board Consulting Engineer's acceptance of the scheme. Reason To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of the surface water management strategy should consider both storage and conveyance of surface water

6.28 The scheme shall also include: Calculations to demonstrate that the proposed

surface water management scheme has been adequately sized to accommodate the critical duration 1 in 100 year rainfall event including allowances for climate change without causing nuisance or damage. The Plans and drawings showing the locations and dimensions of all aspects of the proposed surface water management scheme. The submitted plans should demonstrate that the proposed drainage layout will perform as intended based on the topography of the site and the location of the proposed surface water management features. In addition, full design details, including cross sections of any proposed attenuation features will be required.

6.29 Confirmation that in the event of exceedance flows that surpass the critical

duration rainfall event or a blockage/failure occurs within the drainage network any proposed features should incorporate an emergency spillway as part of their design. We suggest that the emergency spillway directs any exceedance flows away from the development.

6.30 Confirmation that flood risk will not be increased elsewhere and sufficient information to demonstrate that people and property will be kept safe from flooding, with consideration given to overland flow routing where required. Details of the future adoption and maintenance of all aspects of the surface water drainage strategy. The local planning authority should be satisfied that arrangements are in place for the long term maintenance and management of the surface water management scheme. Confirmation of the Waveney Lower Yare and Lothingland Internal DrainageBoard Consulting Engineer's acceptance of the scheme. Reason To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of the surface water 6.31 Anglian Water –ok No objections. The sewage system at present has

available capacity for these flows. If the developer wishes to connect to our sewage network they should serve notice under section 106 of the Water Industry act 1991. We will then advise them of the most suitable point of connection.

6.32 Essex and Suffolk Water- We would advise you that our existing apparatus does not appear to be affected by the proposed development. We give consent to this development on the condition that water mains are laid in the highway to the

17

development, and that the water service is connected with a meter for revenue purposes.

6.33 Natural England – This proposal does not appear to affect any statutory

protected sites or landscapes, or have significant impacts on the conservation of soils, nor is the proposal an EIA development

6.34 Environmental Health – I would not have any opposition to the development proposed, however, I would make the following comments

6.35 Contaminated Land - The contaminated land report was a phase 1 only and this identified that further intrusive investigation is required to establish levels of ground gas, metals and hydrocarbons. Ground gas and the other substances highlighted were found during a site investigation on the plot of land next door where Marston's have applied for planning permission. In addition asbestos (Crysotile) was positively identified during sampling at the Marston's site. As the land in this application was earmarked for allotments it would be within the realms of possibility that asbestos will be present and should be investigated.

6.36 I would therefore recommend a condition that prior to any construction on site a phase 2 report detailing an intrusive site investigation is to be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval. The report should be accompanied by a validated remediation strategy to demonstrate what remediation

6.37 Noise – Fixed Plant

6.38 The report with the application identifies residential properties along Anson Road and Tamworth Lane as the nearest; however, there are residents equidistant in Coronation Green and High Mill Road in Cobholm. Background noise levels are to give rise to audible noise at the boundary of the nearest residences shall be carried out only between the following hours:

Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00 hours Saturday 09:00 to 13:00 hours

6.39 With no such activities being carried out on Sundays and Public Holidays

6.40 All plant and machinery in use shall be silenced and maintained in

accordance with the manufacturers' and/or suppliers' instructions or recommendations. All hand-held pneumatic machinery, including breakers and chisels, shall be of an integrally silenced design.

6.41 In order to minimise dust on the neighbouring residential properties a scheme should be submitted to the planning authority detailing how emissions of dust from the demolition and construction activities on site will be minimised. The air quality assessment that has accompanied the application identifies good practice measures and should be used as a basis for the scheme.

18

6.42 Food Hygiene - The applicants are more than likely aware that some of the units will need to be registered with Environmental Health as a food premises. Despite this it is strongly recommended Environmental Health is consulted by the applicants prior to construction to discuss the layout of the kitchen and the amount and type of ventilation proposed.

6.43 Norfolk Constabulary– The site is in an area that is subject to average

levels of Crime and Anti-social behaviour. Because of the nature of this development with the inherent need for public access, there is very limited capacity to incorporate measures that fall within the definition of Crime Prevention. It is very pleasing to see that the plans broadly accord with the tenets of designing out crime –most especially the creation of Defensible Space, Territorially and the denial of Permeability, when the premises are closed and at other vulnerable times. Advice on doors, glazing, lighting and barriers.

6.44 The covered cycle store should be open-sided or constructed of translucent GRP or similar material. Hooped cycle bars should be installed within the structure (to encourage multiply locking of bicycles ) and securely anchored. The cycle store shall be within full sight of the retail/restaurant premises in order to maximise natural surveillance.

6.45 Building Control – No comments that affect planning. 6.46 Archaeology – Following comment from the County landscape

Archaeological unit that the application lacked a Heritage Assessment the applicants commissioned a Heritage Assessment. The conclusions of which have been agreed with by the Unit on the basis of the information submitted. The conclusion being that the potential to yield further, as yet undiscovered archaeological evidence has not been demonstrated by the desk based study.

6.47 It has been demonstrated that there is at best low potential to yield to yield

lithic material of prehistoric date and there is no potential for archaeologically of of national significance which would preclude development. In this respect archaeology is unlikely to compromise the principle of development

6.48 The proposed development site is to the west of the location of the medieval

chapels associated with South Town and West Town, consequently there is no potential to recover evidence of medieval date.

6.49 The pattern of evidence held by the HER, which is dominated by remains from

the Second World War also indicates that the remains from that period are located beyond the boundaries of the proposed development site and that no further assessment is necessary.

7 Planning Policy Context National Planning Policy

19

7.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

7.2 National planning policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)states in paragraph 22 ‘Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment uses where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.’

7.3 The NPPF recognises the need to ensure the vitality of town centres. In

paragraph 23 it states: ‘Planning policies should be positive, promote competitive town centre environments and set out policies for the management and growth of centres over the plan period. In drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities should:

• Recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality;

• Promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer which reflect the individuality of town centres; and

• Allocate appropriate edge of centre sites for main town centre uses that

are well connected to the town centre where suitable and viable town centre sites are not available. If sufficient edge of centre sites cannot be identified, set policies for meeting the identified needs in other accessible locations that are well connected to the town centre.’

7.4 Para 24 states: ‘Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to

planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.’

7.5 Para 26 states: ‘When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m). This should include assessment of:

20

• The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and,

• The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made.’

7.6 Para 27: Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to

have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused.

Local Planning Policy Context 7.7 The Great Yarmouth Borough Wide Local Plan 2001includes saved policies

which were given full weight for a protected period for 12 months following publication of NPPF in March 2012. However from March 2013 existing polices and the amount of weight that can be given to the saved policies is dependent on their degree of consistency with the NPPF.

7.8 The most up to date and relevant local plan policies to be considered here and are contained in the Great Yarmouth Borough Wide Local Plan 2001and the emerging Core Strategy (April 2014).

7.9 Of the saved policies set the most relevant to this application are set out below .

7.10 Saved Great Yarmouth Borough-Wide Local Plan Policies (2001):

7.11 EMP7: Light industry, offices, general industry, warehousing or open storage and associated uses will be permitted on 9.8 hectares of land at Harfreys Farm and Gapton Hall Industrial Estate as shown on the proposals map.

7.12 EMP10: Subject to the development having no significant detrimental effect on neighbouring uses, mixed uses mainly comprising general industrial, light industrial and warehousing development but with a content of retail and leisure uses not exceeding 20% of the built development will be permitted on 8.8 hectares of land bounded by Pasteur Road, the bypass, Marsh Road, Coronation Green and High Mill Road as shown on the proposals map.

7.13 NNV9: Within identified landscape enhancement areas, the Borough Council

will promote, seek and secure improvements to the landscape through restoration and enhancement measures including the creation of wildlife habitats

7.14 BNV14: As a consequence of new development, including implementation of

relevant proposals within the land reclamation strategy, the Council will secure improvements to the appearance of the main vehicular and pedestrian gateways to the town.

21

7.15 The most up to date and relevant local plan policies to be considered here

and set out above are contained in the Great Yarmouth Borough Wide Local Plan 2001and the emerging Core Strategy (September 2013).

7.16 Core Policy CS7 – Strengthening our centres b) Seek to allocate in accordance with the retail hierarchy and the sequential approach between 3,232sqm (net) and 6,464sqm (net) of new ‘food’ shipping floorspace, and up to 27,672sqm (net) of new ‘non-food’ shopping floorspace, in identified opportunity sites in the borough, up to 2031. c) Promote the extension of Great Yarmouth’s centre to include The Conge and parts of North Quay as a mixed-use development scheme as part of the Great Yarmouth Waterfront Area Action Plan f) Ensure that all proposals for town centre uses outside of defined centres demonstrate that there are no sequentially preferable sites available and that the proposal can be accessed by sustainable transport. Proposals over 200sqm (net) will also be required to submit a Retail Impact Assessment demonstrating that there will be no significant adverse impact on existing designated centres, including those beyond the borough boundary such as Lowestoft. 7.17 Core Policy CS17 – Regenerating Great Yarmouth’s Waterfront The Waterfront area in the heart of Great Yarmouth has the potential to become a vibrant urban quarter that utilises its rich heritage and prime urban riverside location to create a unique and high quality environment for housing, shopping and offices which is attractive to investors and visitors as well as new and existing residents. To help realise this vision, the Council is preparing the Great Yarmouth Waterfront Area Action Plan (AAP) which seeks to [inter alia]: b) Identify appropriate development sites within the Waterfront area for approximately: • 14,200m2 of retail and leisure floorspace, promoting the mixed-use regeneration of disused and other under-used sites (of which at least 5,050m2 is anticipated to be delivered within the plan period) Other supporting studies Great Yarmouth Retail Study (2011, Strategic Perspectives) 7.18 The Great Yarmouth Retail Study was undertaken in 2011 as an update to the

Great Yarmouth Borough Council and Waveney District Council Retail and Leisure Study (2006). The update specifically focussed on the Great Yarmouth Borough area. The Study provided advice on the appropriate scale and type of new retail (convenience and comparison goods) that can be reasonably

22

accommodated in the Borough and its main centres over the development plan period to 2028.

7.19 In terms of comparison goods (which form the bulk of this planning

application) the Study identified the potential capacity for new comparision goods floorspace in 2016 as 4,459 sqm. This capacity increases to 19,110 sqm by 2026 and 27,672 sqm by 2031.

In detail, the Study highlights the need to improve and consolidate comparison (and convenience) goods floorspace in Great Yarmouth in line with its role as an important Town Centre, furthermore the Study recommends that the Council should carefully consider future planning applications in accordance with national, regional and local planning policy, balancing the potential for town centre and edge of centre sites to accommodate all or some of the forecast capacity in compliance with the sequential approach as well as the likely cumulative impact of new development on the overall vitality and viability of the town centre. In the short to medium term the Study considers that in Great Yarmouth, The Conge and North Quay present the most appropriate location for new mixed uses including retail and commercial leisure uses. Retail Planning Appraisal of Proposed Retail Development at Pasteur Rd, Great Yarmouth (2014, Strategic Perspectives) An independent review and appraisal of the retail matters pertaining to the planning application was undertaken by Strategic Perspectives, retail planning consultants working on behalf of the Borough Council. The purpose of the review was to investigate the approach undertaken by Deloitte (acting as planning consultant to the planning application) in terms of the sequential and impact assessment of the site. The Retail Planning Appraisal (RPA) undertook a ‘capacity refresh’ of the 2011 Retail Study to take in to account productivity growth rates and the rise in internet shopping. As a result, the refresh significantly altered the expected capacity for new comparison goods floorspace from negative 660 sqm in 2019, 4,663 sqm in 2026 and 8,865 sqm in 2031. The RPA concluded that the proposal was in compliance with the sequential test as there did not appear to be any alternative sites available in or on the edge of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston Town Centres that could accommodate the application proposal, even after assuming some flexibility in terms of format and scale. Nevertheless, the RPA concluded that the scale and type of out-of-centre retail floorspace currently proposed in the planning application will have a ‘significant adverse impact’ on the vitality and viability of Great Yarmouth Town Centre including planning investment. The RPA also concluded that the level of trade diversion and cumulative impact on Gorleston Town Centre represents a ‘significant adverse impact’ in this case. It was considered that the likely impact on each centre’s overall turnover, shopping trips, linked trips and footfall would be ‘significant’ to represent a

23

serious threat to the overall vitality and viability as shopping destinations in the retail hierarchy as identified in emerging Core Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy Local Plan (CSLP Great Yarmouth Employment Land Review (2012, Bone Wells) The Great Yarmouth Employment Land Review was published as a selective review of the Employment Land Study (Bone Wells, 2006) and the Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth Area Action Plans – Employment Land Evidence Base Report (DTZ, 2009). The study was undertaken to provide an up to date evidence base to guide the safeguarding and allocation of employment land in the new Local Plan up to 2029. The Pasta Foods site was not identified as being part of an employment allocation in the 2001 Borough-Wide Local Plan, but was in existing employment use and the 2012 Study recommends it should be allocated as employment land in the forthcoming Site Allocations Local Plan (SALP). 8 Strategic Planning Response 8.1 The proposal seeks the demolition of an existing warehouse and erection of 7

(A1) units, a restaurant/drive-thru (A3-A5), car parking, cycle storage and associated vehicular upgrades.

8.2 The application site is at Pasteur Road on the south-western side of Great

Yarmouth and is approximately 1km south-west of Great Yarmouth town centre and 400m from the A12 Great Yarmouth western bypass. The site extends to 2.46 hectares and is rectangular in shape. The southern half of the site is vacant scrubland and the northern half is occupied by a single storey warehouse building and car/lorry parking. The site has access onto Pasteur Road, which provides a link between the roundabout junction with the A12 bypass to the south-west and the junction with the town centre, North Quay and South Quay to the north-east.

8.3 The site is bounded by Jones (GC) Way to the west and south-west, to the east

by Pasteur Road and to the north by the existing Pasta Foods factory. A Tesco Extra store and petrol filling station is situated to the north-east and a recently approved pub and restaurant is currently under construction on adjacent land.

8.4 The site is partly allocated as employment land in the 2001 Borough-Wide Local

Plan (2001) whilst the remainder of the site is in general employment/storage uses. The Employment Land Review (2012) identifies the area as being suitable, viable and deliverable for employment use. Paragraph 6.1.8 of the Study states that there are issues with constrained land largely due to poor ground conditions. These sites may become viable when the economy recovers, however it is likely that the most significantly constrained sites will require intervention. It should be noted however that whilst development costs and low returns will discourage speculative developers, companies with specific locational requirements such as those with port related businesses, such constraints may not be insurmountable especially in the long term.

8.5 Since the publication of the Employment Land Review in 2012, the current

intentions to develop the site have changed by virtue of the planning application

24

and as such the proposal would not be considered as currently available for employment use. The NPPF advises against the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Equally emerging Core Policy CS6 allows for alternative uses where it can be demonstrate that there is a sufficient range of suitable and available sites in the borough and that there is a satisfactory relationship between the proposed use and pre-existing neighbouring uses.

8.6 The Employment Land Review (2012) has demonstrated that there are sufficient

alternative sites within the borough to accommodate the likely employment need in the plan period, and equally the site is located within a quasi-employment and retail led area therefore the proposed use would be potentially appropriate for retail-led development

8.7 At the time of the planning application’s submission, the draft Core Strategy Local

Plan (CSLP) sought to allocate, in accordance with the proposed retail hierarchy and sequential approach, up to 27,672 sqm (net) of new ‘non-food’ shopping floorspace, at identified opportunity sites in the borough to 2031.

8.8 The proposal seeks to meet a significant proportion of this need, in an out of

centre location, as there are no other sequentially preferable sites in the locality. Whilst this approach to the sequential test was considered appropriate by the independent RPA, issues concerning its potential impact upon planned investment and trade draw remain questionable. This is necessarily centred upon the 2014 capacity refresh calculations for new non-food goods in the borough which have been significantly reduced since 2011 and consequently no longer identifies the same capacity for comparision floorspace.

8.9 Whilst the lack of capacity for new retail floorspace is not a reason for refusal

under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) it is still material to the assessment of the proposed retail floorspace. The lack of sufficient expenditure in the defined catchment area to support the scale of development proposed would necessarily draw trade from existing stores and centres and possibly create a significant impact upon the vitality of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston town centres.

8.10 The RPA also notes that whilst the scheme is likely to compete against ‘like

for like’ out-of-centre stores and shopping facilities in the catchment area, the planning application remains speculative and does not define named operators for the units other than Dunelm, and the application is seeking A1 non-food retailing with no suggested conditions on the type of goods that can and cannot be sold. The proposed retail floorspace could therefore be occupied by a wide range of retailers that would normally take space in the town centre.

8.11 The RPA also drew attention to the current fragility of the town centre citing

the relocation of Hughes electrical from King Street to the permitted Two Bears Hotel site and most recently, Marks & Spencer have announced that they are to close their town centre store and open an M&S Simply Food Store at Gapton Hall. This has the potential to ‘tip the balance’ of vitality and a further 8,129 sqm (gross) of new out-of-town centre retail floorspace is likely to have a further

25

significant adverse impact on investor confidence particularly with regards to the strategic ambitions of the Great Yarmouth Waterfront Area Action Plan (AAP), which has the potential to meet the revised capacity need, in a quasi town centre/edge of centre location, helping to strengthen the overall retail and leisure offer in the main town.

Conclusion 8.12 Whilst the proposal is partly within employment use, it has been demonstrated

that retail-led development on this site would not have an adverse impact upon the borough’s capacity to bring forward sufficient employment land, and would be an appropriate alternative use.

8.13 It has been demonstrated that the proposal satisfies the sequential test as

there were no other sequentially preferable sites available in Great Yarmouth and Gorleston town centres and edge of centres. However, the independent Retail Planning Appraisal (RPA) does not support the Retail Planning Statement (RPS) view that the application would not have a significant adverse impact upon Great Yarmouth and Gorleston town centres.

8.14 The RPA demonstrates that the proposal would be counterproductive to the

promotion of competitive town centres (a key aim of the NPPF) in light of updated evidence which has significantly reduced the amount of retail floorspace capacity required in the plan period to 2029. Whilst the lack of capacity for new retail floorspace is not a reason for refusal under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), it has nonetheless been demonstrated to have a significant adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of planned investment in Great Yarmouth town centre and would necessarily draw trade away from existing centres, particularly at a time when Great Yarmouth Town Centre has been weakened by further relocations to out-of-centre sites.

8.15 The proposal would also significantly undermine the strategic ambitions of the

Great Yarmouth Waterfront Area Action Plan (AAP) which over the short to medium term in The Conge and North Quay would present the most appropriate locations for new mixed use development including retail, commercial and leisure uses as evidenced by the Retail Study and which forms the key thrust of the emerging Local Plan Core Strategy’s regeneration ambitions.

9 Application Appraisal 9.1 This application has raises a number of issues not in the least that it has

demonstrated the changing dynamics of retail development. The independent reports and appraisal from Strategic Perspectives and subsequent refresh of the retail data show that there is no longer the capacity for retail development that the 2011 Retail Study identified. The Great Yarmouth town centre in particular is increasing fragile and there is no doubt that on the evidence here that a open A1 retail development would continue to undermine the town centre by continuing the shrift of expenditure and footfall away from the town centre.

26

9.2 The applicant during negotiations has reduced the potential for non-bulky goods and reduced the overall retail floor area through omitting mezzanine floors to Units 3 – 7. They also state that this is not a speculative development and that other non bulky retailers are line up but for commercial reasons cannot at this stage confirm who is on board

9.3 The shrift more towards a bulky goods bulky goods development can be seen in the figures above to reduce the over impact of the development but the advice of the retail consultants remains that the development as proposed will have an adverse impact as highlighted above.

9.4 The applicant states that the site is primarily for bulky goods and that the type of retailers that would be attracted is not commensurate with locations in the town centre. The applicants also consider that trade diversion to the proposal site will be less than 10%. They also refer to the earlier Sainsburys development approval which considered that this was an acceptable level of trade diversion.

9.5 They also state that the format of the Units is also different to that available in

the town centre and the development has the potential to attract a number of retailers to Great Yarmouth that are not currently present, therefore helping to stem leakage of shoppers to Norwich and Lowestoft.

9.6 Dunelm are identified as an anchor tenant for the development (and will create 55

jobs)and the applicant is also in advanced negotiations with another homewares retailer for the second largest unit. These two lettings would account for 65% of the scheme and the applicants would expect complimentary retailers to join them. To the applicants mind this should reassure the Council that the proposal is not a speculative development.

9.7 Potentially this could increase the offer available within the Great Yarmouth Area

and improve the townscape in Pasteur Road. Despite the number of people the site anticipates to employ and visit, there is no highways objection to the site subject to a Section 106 agreement for a travel plan and subject to suggested conditions requested by Norfolk County Council and the Highway Agency .

9.8 In design terms the proposal is in many respects is typical of retail park

development and follows the shape of the site with the existing access from Pasteur Road also influencing the layout. All other initial concerns raised by the statutory consultees have been addressed subject to the conditions highlighted in the report.

9.9 The proposal has the potential to both create 150-200 jobs through the

development and secure 140 jobs at Pasta Foods whilst also enabling re-investment for the future. The proposal creates £2million of new investment in Pasta Foods and around £10million in the new retail park; £400,000 pa in new business rates; and a new gateway scheme for Great Yarmouth.

9.10 Whilst the proposal is partly within employment use, it has been demonstrated

that retail-led development on this site would not have an adverse impact upon the borough’s capacity to bring forward sufficient employment land, and would be an appropriate alternative use.

27

9.11 The representations from individual traders and the Town Centre Partnership along with the owners of Market Gates Ellandi highlight the local concern over the frailty of the town centre and the potential impact upon investor confidence and the future of the Great Yarmouth town centre. The reports also highlight the potential impact upon Gorleston town centre.

9.12 The various representations from Savills on behalf of Market Gates put

forward a range of counter reasons against the proposal. Their letter dated 29 October 2014 also presents a good example of how the restrictions by way of planning conditions and a legal agreement might be used should Members be minded to give weight to other material considerations that also need to be taken into account including what might perceived as the wide economic, employment and regeneration benefits of the scheme beyond the likely retail implications. Savills also provide a good assessment of the assessment of the condition put forward by the applicants and despite the Highway Agency quoting the applicants conditions in their consultation reply it is evident that in the range of goods that they proposed to be sold that it is far to wide ranging to be considered a bulky goods only condition and would place the Borough Council under severe pressure to vary the condition for wider retail sales in the future.

9.13 The assessment of this application involves a question of balance because there are positives and negatives however, members need to remember that the planning system is a plan led system and as can be seen above, it has the potential to undermine the Council’s more comprehensive regeneration objectives

10 Recommendation 10.1 The application is recommended for refusal.. 10.2 The RPA demonstrates that the proposal would be counterproductive to the

promotion of competitive town centres (a key aim of the NPPF) in light of updated evidence which has significantly reduced the amount of retail floorspace capacity required in the plan period to 2029. Whilst the lack of capacity for new retail floorspace is not a reason for refusal under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), it has nonetheless been demonstrated to have a significant adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of planned investment in Great Yarmouth town centre and would necessarily draw trade away from existing centres, particularly at a time when Great Yarmouth Town Centre has been weakened by further relocations to out-of-centre sites In that the proposal is considered to have a significant adverse impact upon Great Yarmouth and Gorleston town centres.

10.3 The proposal would also significantly undermine the strategic ambitions of the

Great Yarmouth Waterfront Area Action Plan (AAP) which over the short to medium term in The Conge and North Quay would present the most appropriate locations for new mixed use development including retail, commercial and leisure

28

uses as evidenced by the Retail Study and which forms the key thrust of the emerging Local Plan Core Strategy’s regeneration ambitions.

10.4 Should members be mindful to approve the application taking into account

the wider economic, employment and regeneration benefits of the scheme , then a conditions should be imposed to restrict the use of the units to the sale of bulky goods only, prevention of mezzanine space to Units 3-7 for the future, prevention of the subdivision of any units and to prevent any units smaller than 465sq. m gross.as suggested in the report from Strategic Perspectives and incorporating the suggestions put forward in the letter of objection from Savills dated 29 October 2014 regarding conditions and a legal agreement

10.5 Members should be aware that should the application be approved under the

Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, because of the size and location of the proposal it will need to be referred to the Secretary of State prior to any decision being issued.

Background Papers : Planning File 06/13/0025/F Appendix 1 S P Review 5 August 2 Deloitte Letter 19 August . 3 Savills 29 October 4 Savills 1 September 5 Representations from Town Centre Partnership and individual submissions objecting to the proposal and one in support 6 Norfolk County Highways