Agenda item

Planning Application No. 18/0983/OUT - B&Q, Avocet Road, Sowton Industrial Estate, Exeter

To consider the report of the Service Lead City Development.

 

Minutes:

The Planning Consultant - Legal, in response to a Member, advised that the Committee had already voted to resolve to refuse the request from the applicant to defer the application.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MD) presented the application for outline planning permission for a retail park (Class A1) along with complementary cafe/restaurants (Class A3) including means of access (all other matters reserved).

 

The proposal was to demolish the existing retail warehouse and develop a retail park comprising Class A1 (shops) and A3 (cafes and restaurants) uses. The application was a re-submission of an application submitted in 2015 and withdrawn in 2016. The developers are seeking approval for a maximum floorspace of 17,000 sq m (GEA) / 14,865 sq m (GIA) comprising 8,175 sq m A1 ground floor, 5,899 sq m A1 mezzanine and 790 sq m A3. The mezzanine floorspace would be used for trading or non-trading purposes. Approval was also sought for a Parameters Plan, showing the above floorspace provided in a Core Development Area arranged in an L shape on the site and, beyond this, an Outer Development Area used for ancillary buildings, pedestrian circulation, car parking, service yard areas and vehicle circulation. The Plan also showed 0.64ha landscaping around the edge of the site and two public footpaths to Honiton Road to the north. The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MD) advised that the Parameters Plan encroached into the TPO area.

 

The report also detailed the key issues of the principles of the proposed development, access and impact on local highways, parking, impact on air quality, contaminated land and impact on amenity of surroundings, impact on trees and biodiversity, flood risk and surface water management and sustainable construction and energy conservation.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MD) advised that an updated response had been received from Environmental Health maintaining their objection due to the adverse impact on air quality and insufficient mitigation of air quality impacts. This was in response to a Technical Note by Create Consulting Engineers Ltd. submitted on 19 July.

 

No new information had been submitted in regard to the highways issues.

 

The Principal Project Manager (Development) (MD) referred to a late representation from the Crown Estate supporting the recommendation to refuse the application.

 

Councillor Holland, having given notice under Standing Order No. 44, spoke on the retail proposals in general. His comments are set out in Min. No. 42 above.

 

Adrian Fox spoke in support of the application. He raised the following points:-

 

·                     an important decision is required to decide on where Exeter is going to accommodate future, out of town retail growth. The retail sector was contracting and facing unprecedented structural change with less demand for new floorspace making the re-use of existing underutilised retail floor space desirable in planning terms;

·                     disappointing that the Honiton Road scheme is recommended for approval because of the planning history of this site, previously refused and dismissed by the Secretary of State with a modest reduction in floor area failing to address the latter’s concerns;

·                     a principal reason for recommending the Honiton Road site was that it was perceived to be sequentially preferable due to its accessibility. National policy is clear that preference should only be given to out of centre locations that are well connected to a centre rather than potentially being better connected;

·                     both sites are clearly out-of-centre but are both accessible by a variety of modes of transport, including by bus and cycle. The two sites are sequentially equal;

·                     as the only site with an established retail use, the B&Q site is the right choice for retail growth in Exeter. It is logical to redevelop an established retail destination rather than build a new out?of?centre retail development, adding to traffic, congestion and pollution;

·                     it is unsustainable to permit new floorspace when the sector is contracting, and underutilised and when redundant retail space already exists;

·                     the existing consent allows sub-division and the sale of any non-food goods. This acknowledged fallback position is unlike any other retail proposal under consideration. There are examples across the country where similar large format retail units are being sub-divided to accommodate a range of retailers. This represents a genuine fallback that is deliverable;

·                     the outstanding matters of highways and air quality do not represent reasons why the scheme cannot be supported; and

·                     open to further discussions in relation to appropriate planning conditions for an even better scheme to be presented. This includes agreement to a reduced quantum of floorspace. For this reason, request that the application be deferred.

 

He responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

 

·         the site is accessible by bus with a bus stop some 400 metres on the nearby Honiton Road which is the recommended distance;

·         the County Council accept that the site is readily accessible by alternative modes of transport; and

·         fall back position is put forward as, although major stores are committed,other B and Q sites across the country are underutilised resulting in subdivision and provision for food and drink, convenience etc.

 

The recommendation was for refusal for the reasons as set out in the report.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission for outline application outline planning permission for a retail park (Class A1) along with complementary cafe/restaurants (Class A3) including means of access (all other matters reserved) be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

 

1.    Insufficient information has been provided to confirm that safe and suitable access can be achieved to the site for all users, taking into account the transport hierarchy in Policy T1 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review, or that the residual cumulative impacts of the scheme on the road network would not be severe. In the absence of this information and confirmation from the Local Highway Authority that these issues are acceptable it cannot be ensured that safe and suitable access to the site will be provided or that the development would not have severe cumulative impacts on the local road network, including securing the provision of any necessary infrastructure in accordance with Policy CP18 of the Core Strategy. The application therefore contravenes paragraph 108 of the NPPF.

 

2.    Insufficient information has been provided to confirm that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on air quality at East Wonford Hill within the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), where pollution levels are exceeding the objective level at residential properties, and no air quality mitigation is proposed should the development have an adverse impact at this location. In the absence of this information, it cannot be ensured that the development would not harm air quality within the AQMA and the application is considered to be contrary to Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy, saved Policy EN3 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review and paragraph 181 of the NPPF.

 

3.    Paragraph 87 of the NPPF states that when considering out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites which are well connected to the town centre. Taking into account the requirement for flexibility on issues such as format and scale, the site subject to planning application number 18/1330/OUT (‘Moor Exchange’) and recommended for approval by officers is considered sequentially preferable to the application site, as it is nearer to bus stops with regular services to the City Centre. The application is also considered to contravene Policy CP8 of the Core Strategy, as it is considered to have poor access by public transport and other sustainable travel modes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: