PRALS – Executive Summary of objections to planning application 2006/2003

PRALS Objections to Penistone Town Centre Redevelopment

Penistone Residents Against Large Supermarkets (PRALS) is a group of concerned residents who object to the development proposed in Planning Application 2006/2003 made by Dransfield Properties in Penistone.

The objections arise from:

·  organising a well attended public meeting

·  speaking to retailers, market traders and residents

·  carrying out traffic and parking surveys

·  carrying out a survey of retail employment

·  collecting anecdotal evidence from residents in other towns affected by large supermarket developments

·  Analysis of the planning application and supplemental document submitted by Dransfield Properties.

Our findings show that there are major deficiencies in planning application 2006/2003.

PRALS supports the redevelopment of Penistone, and is not against the expansion of retail facilities in the town centre per see, but wants any development to complement existing trade and economic activity. PRALS believes that this could be achieved through a smaller scale supermarket, in conjunction with the construction of a number of independent retail units, with the entire development being focused around the further development of the existing market. PRALS fully supports a process that brings about a new proposal that enhances local trade, in full consultation with local people.

Our main concerns with the current proposal are in relation to:

·  A comparison of the proposal with national planning document PPS6

·  A comparison of the proposal with the Barnsley MBC’s original planning brief

·  The retail impact of the development

·  The traffic and parking issues related to the development

·  The lack of community consultation with regards to the development.

Our objections can be summarised as follows.

In relation to national document PPS6:

  1. the development will work against the long term health of the market
  2. the development will reduce genuine choice within Penistone town centre
  3. the scale of the development is inappropriate
  4. a sequential approach to site selection has not been demonstrated
  5. the development does little to encourage growth in the local economy.

In relation to the Barnsley MBC planning brief:

  1. the supermarket is larger than the maximum size specified
  2. the car park is smaller than the minimum size specified
  3. no attempt has been made to provide facilities for buses even though this is a principle objective in the planning brief
  4. the supermarket building does not conform to the guidelines outlined in the planning brief in terms of building style or choice of materials
  5. an area of green space will be lost to this development, and this area exceeds the boundaries identified in the planning brief.

On the retail impact of the development:

  1. the applicants have failed to supply data to show that the proposed Tesco store will provide economic benefit to Penistone and district and in particular to protect the current retail provision including the popular retail and farmers’ market.
  2. the applicants have failed to provide sufficient information on the full range of current retailing of convenience and comparison goods within the primary and secondary catchments for Penistone and the likely impact of the proposed Tesco store.
  3. the applicants have failed to assess the value of the local food economy in Penistone
  4. the applicants have failed to provide any data on the extent of the current Penistone Thursday and Saturday markets and the monthly farmers’ market.
  5. the applicants have failed to provide convincing evidence of the extent to which the proposed Tesco store will draw customers from outside the primary and secondary catchment areas.
  6. the applicants have failed to provide detailed, up-to-date analysis of current shopping habits in the primary and secondary catchments taking into account recent changes in retail provision including internet shopping.
  7. the applicants have failed to assess the impact of the proposed floor space for comparison shopping within the proposed store on other Penistone retailers.
  8. the applicants have proposed just one approach to retail development in central Penistone without considering other ways to distribute the floor area said to be required to meet convenience and comparison shopping demand within the catchment area.
  9. the height of the proposed store should be restricted to prevent the subsequent construction of a mezzanine floor within the fabric of the store thus allowing for the possibility of the sales area to be expanded in the future.

On the traffic and parking impact of the development:

  1. the size of the car park is inadequate for the number of trips that will be generated as a result of the development, meaning that the car park will over-capacity for most of each weekday.
  2. the size of the car park is only just adequate for the existing users of Penistone Town Centre.
  3. the base traffic census data ignores residential developments that have taken place in Penistone since 2005.
  4. the base TRICS data used in the traffic assessment is likely to underestimate the number of trips to/from the development, and a tolerance value must be added to the figures quoted.
  5. the traffic redistribution affect around Stottercliffe Road suggested in the traffic assessment, is negated by an opposite redistributive effect.
  6. the allocation of development trips to the local road network, as proposed in the assessment, has been performed in an arbitrary manner. A more realistic assignment of trips to the road network changes traffic flows considerably.
  7. the traffic signals at the junction of Bridge Street are near capacity, and this development will result in them reaching the saturation point.
  8. the resultant effect of these inconsistencies in the traffic assessment is that there is a high likelihood that the Bridge Street corridor will become severely congested as a result of this development.

On the lack of community consultation:

  1. there has been a lack of real community consultation within the Penistone area
  2. in relation to this application only the consultation process initiated by Dransfield properties is now being considered, and other earlier consultation exercises are being ignored.
  3. The methodology used by Dransfield in its consultation exercise is not objective and contains serious flaws.

___

Based on our research and the evidence presented in our objection we recommend that Barnsley MBC reject planning application 2006/2003, and request that the developer works on a revised application which takes into account the concerns we have raised.

PRALS

19th January 2007

For further information on our objections to this proposal and our ideas for the sustainable redevelopment of Penistone town centre, contact:

Pete Riley, PRALS Secretary,

50 South Yorkshire Buildings,

Silkstone Common,

Barnsley,

S75 4RJ.

Email:

Tel: 01226 790713

Page 1

19 January 2007