Extract from Agenda and Draft Minutes Strategic Planning Committee Wednesday, 9th February, 2011 9.30 am

PA10/04297 Sainsbury's Supermarkets and Cranford Hayle Ltd: Land at Marsh Lane, Hayle

• Meeting of Strategic Planning Committee, Wednesday, 9th February, 2011 9.30 am, MOVED (Item SP/134)
• Add comment about item SP/134

Construction of supermarket, petrol filling station, car parking, highway works, nature reserve and associated works

 

CASE OFFICER: Jeremy Content on 01736 336785 or email jeremy.content@cornwall.gov.uk

Please follow the link below for the background papers to this report which included the GVA Retail Advice:

Background Papers

Minutes:

The Assistant Head of Planning and Regeneration (Central) outlined the application and the addenda which had previously been circulated to Members and were tabled at the meeting. The addenda referred to the 84 letters of representation that had been received, details of the Section 106 Obligation, responses to the bat survey which raised no concerns; and additional correspondence from the agents in relation to additional proposals regarding flooding. He recommended that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

 

In response to questions on the officer’s presentation, Members were advised the following:

 

(i) The retail sequential test and the Environment Agency’s sequential test on flood grounds were entirely different issues, but both were material considerations with a potential to lead to a refusal of an application.

(ii) The railway line was an old incline no longer in use and was outside the application site.

 

Councillor Jayne Ninnes, Hayle Town Council, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, and spoke against the application.

 

Bruno Moore, for the applicant, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, and spoke in support of the application. He answered a number of questions from Members for clarification.

 

Councillor John Coombe, Local Member, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, and made the following comments:

 

(i) The application was on a greenfield site encroaching on Angarrack and Hayle.

(ii) It was also marshland and was causing great concern due to recent flooding in the area, despite the proposed mitigation measures.

(iii) He expressed concerns regarding the proposal for a footpath to Angarrack and the highways objection.

(iv) It would not benefit the town centre.

 

Councillor John Pollard, Local Member, attended the meeting, was permitted to speak, and advised that he supported refusal of the application as it was on the wrong site.

 

A full and detailed debate ensued, the main points of which were noted as follows:

 

(i) It was commented that the proposals were incredibly anti-pedestrian and that the reasons for refusal should reflect that more strongly.

(ii) It was suggested that it would be unfair not to defer the application in line with the previous decision, however, it was commented that there were good grounds for refusal of the application whereas the previous application had huge community benefits and the potential to overcome the issues of concern.

(iii) Members were advised that each application must be considered on its own merits and that there were three preferential sites to the application in question and a number of other reasons for refusal.

 

Arising from consideration of the report and the debate, it was moved by Councillor Biggs, and seconded by Councillor Wood, that the application be deferred to allow consideration of the applications for the three preferred sites, prior to consideration of the application.

 

On a vote of 6-8, the motion was lost.

 

It was further moved by Councillor Wallis, seconded by Councillor Mann, and, on a vote of 10-3 with 1 abstention, it was

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused in respect of Application No. PA10/04297 (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets and Cranford Hayle Ltd: Land at Marsh Lane, Hayle).

 

The reasons given by the proposer for wishing to refuse the application were that the proposal was in an out of centre site as defined by Planning Policy Statement 4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4). There were sequentially preferable sites in edge of centre locations which were potentially viable, suitable and available for development of a supermarket. The proposal thus failed to comply with the requirements of the sequential approach set out in PPS4 policy EC15 and should be refused in accordance with policy EC17.1 (a) of PPS4. The proposal also was contrary to Regional Planning Guidance South West policy EC6 which required a sequential approach to location of retail development, Cornwall Structure Plan policy 11 which prioritised regeneration of urban areas and town centres and policy 14 which gave priority to the improvement and enhancement of town centres and required retail development to be in or adjoining town centres where they could help sustain the centre’s viability and vitality, and contribute to the town centre environment in an accessible location. The proposal was contrary to Penwith Local Plan policy TV16 which required major retail development in town centres or edge of centre sites where no town centre sites existed. Policy TV16 did not permit out of centre development until all town centre and edge of centre sites had been demonstrated to be unsuitable.

The scale of the proposed supermarket in terms of net floor trading area would result in a significant diversion of trade from the Foundry and Copperhouse town centres of Hayle with a consequential significant adverse impact on the viability and vitality of the town centres. The advantage to local consumers of increased choice and competition was not considered to outweigh the harmful impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability. The proposed location was distant from the town centres and would not encourage linked trips, especially those trips made on foot or cycle when compared to edge of centre sites and as such, the proposal would fail to support the existing town centres. Furthermore, the proposed location would encourage linked trips to the West Cornwall Retail Park, further discouraging linked trips with the town centres. The proposal should be refused in accordance with policy EC17.1 (b) of Planning Policy Statement 4. The proposal was contrary to Regional Planning Guidance policy EC6, Cornwall Structure Plan policy 14 and Penwith Local Plan policies TV16 and TV17 which protected the viability and vitality of Town Centres.

Whilst the proposal would result in a reduction in the length of trips made by Hayle residents to undertake their main food shopping, the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not generate lengthy additional trips drawn from new trade outside the primary catchment area. The store’s location adjacent to the West Cornwall Retail Park would increase the attractiveness of the site as a retail destination in its own right that would increase the use of the local and strategic road network to the detriment of the operation of those networks and increase the use of private car borne transport contrary to the sustainability aims set out in the Key Principle (ii) of Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development.

The proposed site failed the sequential test set out in Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk which directed development towards areas of least flood risk. The applicant had failed to demonstrate that the identified alternative sites that presented a lesser flood risk were not suitable, available or viable. The proposal thus failed to accord with the advice within Planning Policy Statement 25 and was contrary to Regional Planning Guidance – South West policy RE2, Cornwall Structure Plan policy 3 and Penwith Local plan policy CS4.

The proposal would be sited within a County Wildlife Site and would have a significant harmful impact on biodiversity conservation interests within the site. The proposal thus conflicted with Planning Policy Statement 9 which sought to preserve biodiversity. The applicant had not robustly demonstrated that there were no other sites of lesser biodiversity interest where location of a supermarket would have less harm. As such, the proposed compensation and mitigation measures did not make the proposal acceptable. The proposal was thus contrary to regional Planning Guidance – South West policy EN1 and Cornwall Structure Plan policy 1 and 2 as well as conflicting with Penwith Local Plan policy CC8.

The proposal had failed to demonstrate that the supermarket development would not harm the safe and efficient operation of the strategic road network. Nor had it been demonstrated that there would be no harmful effect on the capacity of the double mini roundabout at Carwin Rise to the west of the Loggans Moor A30 roundabout. As such, the proposal had not been robustly shown to maintain or enhance the existing level of local and strategic road network highway safety for all users or capacity to efficiently provide for the movement of vehicles. The proposal was therefore contrary to Regional Planning Guidance policy VIS2, Cornwall Structure Plan policies 27 and 28 and Penwith Local Plan policy GD2(v) and advice within Planning Policy Guidance Note 13.

The proposal would result in the development of greenfield land on the edge of the urban environment and constituted an extension of the built form into the countryside. The applicant had not robustly demonstrated that there were no previously developed alternative sites in town available which would meet the need for a supermarket. The proposal was thus contrary to Regional Planning Guidance – South West policy Vis 2, Cornwall Structure Plan policy 3 and Penwith Local Plan policy TV1 and failed to have sufficient regard to addressing Proposal TV-D.

 

Supporting documents:

• PA10/04297 Sainsburys Supermarkets and Cranford Hayle Ltd: Land at Marsh Lane, Hayle, item SP/134 PDF 600 KB