PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) COMMITTEE - 11th March 2010

ADDENDUM TO THE AGENDA:

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REPORT (INCLUDING SPEAKERS)

1.0INTRODUCTION

1.1This report summarises information received since the Agenda was compiled including, as appropriate, suggested amendments to recommendations in the light of that information. It also lists those people wishing to address the Committee.

1.2Where the Council has received a request to address the Committee, the applications concerned will be considered first in the order indicated in the table below. The remaining applications will then be considered in the order shown on the original agenda unless indicated by the Chairman.

2.0ITEM 4 – APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO DEVELOP, ETC.

REVISED ORDER OF AGENDA (SPEAKERS)

Agenda item 4 74393/FULL/2009Old Trafford Cricket Ground and land between Chester Road and Talbot Road, Stretford

SPEAKER(S)AGAINST: Ms D Clarke and Ms M Rayner

On behalf of neighbours

FOR: Mr J Cumbes and Mr A Burke

On behalf of applicants

APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION

The applicant has submitted a cumulative impact assessment which examines the cumulative impact on existing stores, centres and commitments of the proposed comparison goods floorspace. This they state should be read alongside the cumulative impact assessment submitted on the 1 March 2010 which examines convenience goods floorspace proposed.

CONSULTATIONS

LHA: Additional comments received as follows:

Old Trafford Cricket Ground

The applicant has submitted an amended car parking layout plan and details of cycle parking and motorcycle parking within the LCCC site. Whilst the car parking layout addresses earlier concerns raised in this respect, there are concerns that the layout and type of cycle and motorcycle parking proposed would not operate effectively. These matters however can be covered by condition requiring the submission and agreement of further details.

The applicant has confirmed that they would accept a condition which restricts the use of the proposed Great Stone Road access and the general management of the car park. The LHA would have sufficient control through this condition to ensure that the Great Stone Road access does not comprise the main access to the site and is used only at agreed times/events. It is also considered that it is no longer necessary for the applicant to assess the match day traffic at the Talbot Road/Warwick Road junction as this would not be materially greater than that currently experienced at the site on match days.

Foodstore

The applicant has indicated a taxi drop off/pick up point in the proposed Tesco foodstore site. This should however comprise a formal Hackney carriage rank in a lay-by form. This matter should also be covered by condition. The provision of two car parking spaces within the PFS also addresses earlier concerns in this respect.

Pollution and Licensing: The Applicant states that they are unable to provide full details of the proposed floodlighting columns at this stage as the detailed design has not been ‘worked up’. It is considered acceptable that this matter covered by a condition requiring the submission and approval of full technical details of the lighting columns prior to their installation.

Greater Manchester Police Secured by Design: The Phasing Strategy and amended elevations prepared by the applicant, subject to the agreed amendments outlined in Bradley Hart's email of 2 March 2010, address those earlier concerns outlined in Police’s original response and contained within the Crime Impact Statement.

REPRESENTATIONS

OBJECTION

12 additional letters/emails of objection have been received from residents and businesses of Trafford and Manchester. The following additional points have been raised in these submissions:

  • Full or partial closure of Chester Road/Ravenswood Road resulting from the planned highway alteration works would impact on the ability of employees/clients and suppliers from gaining access to offices in Trafford House on Chester Road;
  • Increased traffic congestion on Chester Road and other surrounding roads once the store is open will impact on access to local businesses and the ability to recruit and retain employees;
  • There would be significant noise disruption for local businesses during the construction phase;
  • The site has not been developed before and there are concerns therefore that it would interrupt the mains water, sewerage and electrical supplies in the locality during the construction phase and would result in a long term increase in electricity demand from the development on existing shared substations;
  • Chorlton is known for its independent food retailers and the choice, quality and specialist knowledge makes for an enjoyable shopping experience. Concerned Chorlton will become bland as proposed supermarket would decimate the village;
  • Applicant should consider developing the smaller store on this site;
  • LCCC are not helping the area with their plans at present in relation to their link with Tescos;
  • How can a store which is twice the size be more energy efficient, sustainable or ‘eco friendly’. Why can’t these same measures be applied to the smaller Tesco foodstore approved;
  • The applicant’s Environmental Statement claims that the creation and enhancement of cycle lanes and pedestrian links will significantly mitigate the adverse traffic impacts are misleading and miscalculated;
  • Why designate land as Protected Open Space if you are just going to build on it. Pedestrian link/landscaping would not adequately mitigate against the loss of this green area;
  • No evidence that the LCCC proposal represents the minimum required to meet the ECB’s standards;
  • Applicant’s PPS4 Supplementary Statement andCumulative Impact Assessments do not satisfy objections raised in terms of the impact on surrounding centres;
  • The Proposal would have a material impact on the health of Ayres Road Local Centre which is a ‘gem’ of a centre and should be recognised and safeguarded as a local community with a broad and diverse shopping experience.

1 resident from Merseyside, who had previously submitted a letter of support, has also written to inform the Council that he would like to withdraw his earlier response stating that he feels the club need to find another route to market without supermarkets which will have a devastating impact on local communities and small businesses.

Petition: A further petition of objection to the proposed foodstore has been submitted signed by 13 local residents.

Stretford Mall: The owners of Stretford Mall went into receivership on the 26th February 2010. Jones Lang LaSalle have been appointed as the receivers and have submitted a letter of objection to the planning application regarding the likely retail impact of the proposed Tesco store on Stretford Town Centre. Whilst a full copy of the letter is appended to this Additional Information Report, the main points raised are also summarised below:

  • The Tesco Metro dominates the Mall and is one of the primary generators of visits/footfall to the centre;
  • Proposed Tesco is very large and the non food (comparison) offer would exceed the food (convenience) offer;
  • The comparison element of the proposed Tesco foodstore equates to the equivalent of up to 20 high street shop units;
  • Applicant maintains comparison goods sold are often purchased on impulse. Concerned that there would be no certainty that proportion of shoppers attracted to such stores to purchase comparison goods would not increase as a consequence of an expanding range and choice is offered;
  • Hard to understand why the margin of excess (particularly regarding comparison floorspace) is required for the proposed Tesco store in retail terms;
  • Is necessary to attach weight to likely (and as yet unrealised) impact of the extant consent when also considering the current, much larger store proposal;
  • Proposal is bigger than the smaller scheme previously refused on appeal. Furthermore, Stretford Mall was at this time in a much healthier position (2006). In the context of the current application and the fragile state of Stretford Mall, suggest applicant’s conclusions regarding the likely impact of the larger foodstore are germane;
  • Applicant applies company average turnover as a worst case scenario. Concerned every prospect the proposed store could perform in excess of company average levels;
  • Impact of proposed store would be to reduce Tesco Metro store from one of relative comfort to one of sub company average performance in the critical convenience goods category. These figures would be significantly adversely affected even by a relatively small numerical change in trade diversion;
  • Commitment of 5 years to Metro is too short, particularly given the importance of the retailer to the Mall. This agreement might also not be enforceable;
  • Spin-off trade diversion has been ‘wrapped up’ with the overall trade diversion. Should treat these with caution. Should applicant’s prediction to 2015 prove inaccurate, the impact could be even more serious;
  • The receivers have requested that the application be refused.

No Mega Tesco: This group comprises 150 local residents from the areas of Gorse Hill, Stretford, Old Trafford and Chorlton, and was formed following a public meeting in GorseHillUnitedChurch in September 2009. The group submitted a letter of objection to the planning application and the points raised were summarised within the main list of objections received from local residents and businessesin the report. No Mega Tesco has requested however that these points be listed separately so that it is clear they represent their views as a local group. The main points raised by No Mega Tesco are therefore outlined below. This also includes several additional comments received by the Council after the publication of the main report:

  • Proposal fails to meet requirements of the Revised Trafford UDP and PPS4 including the impact on the surrounding district centres (Policy EC13 and EC16), vitality and vibrancy of local centres (Policy EC4) and does not adequately consider sequential assessment (EC15);
  • Inspector at the previous Public Inquiry raised concerns regarding the impact on town, district and local centres. This contrasts with the applicant’s statement that the proposed store would not have an adverse impact on their vitality and viability. The Inspector also previously considered that the retail impacts on the surrounding district centres had been downplayed by the applicants;
  • Part of the 2006 submission included a plan indicating the local centres within the catchment area for the proposed store. This map is absent from the current application and No Mega Tesco urge that the Council request this information;
  • Applicant does not recognise Hulme as a district centre. The greatest draw identified by the applicant would be on an Asda within this identified centre;
  • Applicant uses out of date growth figures for comparison goods sector applying a growth figure of 4.5% and 5.3% beyond. However, the Retail Planner report produced by Experian in August 2009 recorded growth in the comparison goods sector for 2008 at only 1.1%. The available ‘slice of pie’ would therefore be smaller for comparison goods than that stated, having a greater impact on other defined centres;
  • The proposal is contrary to Policy S10 of Revised Trafford UDP which seeks to maintain and enhance the retail function of local and neighbourhood shopping centres. In particular, it would have a detrimental impact on the vitality of local shops in Gorse Hill and Ayres Road;
  • The reasons the Inspector refused the smaller foodstore in 2006 are still relevant. The retail impact of this larger foodstore would be totally unacceptable;
  • Combined impact of Tesco and Derwent Holdings proposal would be devastating for the surrounding centres;
  • Applicant has shown insufficient flexibility or scope for dissagregation in its sequential assessment. Its business model includes a comparison goods only Home Plus store format;
  • The pre-application community consultation exercise was flawed. 1000 households on the Gorse Hill estate to the north of Chester Road were not invited to attend an event in December 2008 and many residents were therefore prevented from expressing their opinion. Proper consultation should be carried out at all stages. Therefore fails to comply with PPS1 which identifies community involvement as an essential element in delivering sustainable development;
  • Public transport links to the site are significantly overstated by the applicant and compare poorly with those serving Stretford Town Centre, resulting in increased vehicle journeys;
  • The proposal would divert existing traffic on the roads traveling to other stores, rather than reduce traffic and will increase traffic congestion around the store. The Transport Assessment (TA) also identifies a number of junctions which would operate above the 90% ‘degree of saturation’, the level identified as practical capacity;
  • The TA does not include details of number and frequency of delivery vehicles (HGV and OGV) expected;
  • Proposal would worsen air quality which already fails to meet EU objectives;
  • The Cumulative Impact Assessment submitted by Tesco on 14January 2010 does not consider the cumulative impact of these two very large stores on the nearby district and therefore does not comply with PPS4;
  • The proposed store would become the largest retail store in the area by a significant margin and as an out-of-centre site would be out of keeping with the majority of surrounding stores;
  • Proposal is contrary to Policies EC13 and EC16 of PSS4 which seek to protect existing facilities in local centres which provide for people's day-to-day needs and requires that a proposal of this kind is of an appropriate scale and that retail impact in the wider area is assessed.

Trafford Green Party: The party has submitted the following additional representations to the planning application:

  • Are of opinion Listed Building Consent is required for the proposed boulevard works. The Town Hall and the sunken gardens are contemporaneous and are part of the same setting. Inconceivable that the access between the two should be treated as anything other than as part of the curtilage;
  • The sale of part of the school playing fields for the original supermarket development required a Section 77 agreement to cover the replacement of the playing fields lost. This included the provision of two pitches on GorseHillPark and a sports hall and artificial pitch on the remainder of the site adjacent to the leisure centre. This pitch/hall has never materialised;
  • Section 3(2) of the Local Government Act 2000 does not allow the authority to raise money by selling land to Tesco or otherwise by permitting Tesco to develop on Council land, and it would therefore appear to be in contravention of this part of the act. Alternatively if the Council does not need to raise money then the only argument for allowing an inappropriate retail development on the site is worthless and claims made by LCCC that the Tesco money is essential are false. Either way it is folly of the Council to decide the application without proper clarification of the situation otherwise it will surely be laying itself open to legal challenge;
  • The applicant’s Open Space Update Note distort the facts and contain inaccuracies and inconsistencies and condenses history. The approved all weather pitch has not been provided and this runs counter to an agreement signed under Section 77 of the 1998 Act and condition 9 of Planning permission ref. H/56481;
  • The Council’s Executive Reports from 2007 and 2008 show that the provision of playing pitch facilities on the Tesco site were put on hold while discussions on the masterplan for the Gorse Hill area were progressed. It has nothing to do with the possible Academy proposal. The Director of Built Environment of the Council recognised the significance of these facilities in a letter dated 16 May 2005 stating that the all weather pitch would be the only full sized facility of this type in its immediate environs and was expected to become a venue for local, if not regional tournaments. The committee report also recognised the significant regeneration benefits associated;
  • Applicant states that playing fields for the school/academy will be at GorseHillPark. Firstly the decision on the Academy still has not been taken. Secondly GorseHillPark is already used by the School and represents just two thirds of the provision that should have been provided by the Council at the time. These playing fields form part of the public park, they can in no way be seen as a substitute or compensation for the playing fields that have already been sold or the additional area covered in this application;
  • Developer dismisses benefit of this open space. However, there is a community benefit to having an area to walk your dog, whilst match day parking must bring money into the school funds and reduce pressure of parking elsewhere – a wide community benefit;
  • Proposed pedestrian link in no way compensates for the loss of the pitches nor is it a benefit in its own right, it just takes people from one main road to another along the Town Hall access road bringing pedestrians into conflict with vehicles;
  • Benefit of GorseHillPark as contiguous facility to meet School/Academy requirement flies in face of statement proposing use of cricket ground outfield which is across two roads and would not always be available;
  • Supplementary Cumulative Impact Assessment submitted by applicant facilities to take account of Tesco foodstore at West One which falls within the catchment area. The Retail Statement for this Tesco foodstore at Eccles indicates that it would take a significant amount of trade away from Stretford Town Centre. This would be in addition to trade lost to the proposed Old Trafford Tesco;
  • The Tesco Retail Assessment for West One in Salford refers to the White City CLEUD as a retail commitment. However, Tesco’s Retail Assessment for Old Trafford fails to acknowledge this. There is no way the Council can prevent this CLEUD from being implemented and this must be taken into account in any retail assessment;
  • There is no mention in the cumulative impact assessment of its impact on smaller stores and local shopping areas around Stretford;
  • Inspector of earlier Inquiry considered predicted retail impact figures to be unsatisfactory. The proposal is much larger and would have a greater impact;
  • Claim that the opening of a bargain store within the previous Woolworth’s store is indicative of growth is fatuous in the extreme. It merely shows that in a time of recession many people have to resort to such stores to make ends meet and is no indictor other retailers will follow;
  • ‘Very good’ BREEAM rating is insufficient and is only an aspiration. The proposal will also bring large amounts of traffic along Chester Road regardless of whether it can physically accommodate this and there will inevitably be more CO2.Proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy EC10.2a;
  • Improvements to accessibility proposals are minimal and involve relocation of two bus stops and does not meet Policy EC10.2b requirements;
  • Proposed Tesco will overpower the neighbouring listed Town Hall. Foodstore is not a high quality inclusive design and therefore fails to comply with Policy EC10.2c
  • Benefits of regeneration of cricket club are clear however not clear that this should be funded by a large foodstore. Furthermore, the main benefactors would be in Manchester, not Trafford. Proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy EC10.2d;
  • Tesco store would generate employment but no reason why another sustainable development wouldn’t provide similar employment benefits. In absence of a guarantee about the rest of the masterplan area, the current application cannot supply appropriate regeneration of the area and taken on their own could be seen to be running counter to this objective. Compliance with Policy EC10.2e is therefore questionable;
  • £21m cross subsidy should not be used as an emotional battering ram to rush through a development fundamentally flawed in planning and legal terms.
  • Legal opinion regarding the inclusion of the link states that it is spurious and will result in the removal of car parking spaces and destroy the setting of the listed building.
  • The applications have been hurried to Committee with inadequate time for proper consideration. As such the reports are fundamentally flawed and urge that the decisions on these applications be deferred pending proper consideration to avoid the potential for legal challenge;

Cllrs Val Stevens and Sheila Newman representing the Chorlton ward in Manchester have submitted the followingadditional representation: