Tesco at Little Lever - Two minute address to the Planning Committee

This was my two minute address to the Planning Committee on the 24th May

Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen

I will be brief (For once)

This Application is too large, too significant and too controversial to be decided by any other means than the collective judgment of the whole Planning Committee.

I have argued that this proposal demands an Impact Assessment on Planning Grounds by virtue of its scale. It does not conform to the Local Plan. The Committee may agree with me – or not.

However, further to that, if the Committee are representing the interests of the vitality and viability of the existing Village Centre, then commonsense dictates that they should be keen to know the conclusions of such an Impact Assessment before making a decision.

Osbourne Clarke (The lawyers representing Asda) in their letter of yesterday state

“If such an Impact Assessment is not submitted and taken into account in reaching a decision in respect of the Application, we would have real concerns about the lawfulness of any decision taken by the Council”

If they pursued this to Law, the costs would be incurred by the Council – not the Applicant.

Highways Plan.

As Mr Mullen confirmed this morning, without the one way system the Junction would not operate within capacity.

If the Committee determined that this aspect (or any other aspect) of the Highways Plan is unacceptable, then it could not be removed by a Planning Condition – since Mr Mullen admitted that the whole modeling exercise would have to be re-done.

Other than that, it would mean that Consent had been given with the Junction operating above Capacity.

Finally. In my opinion, there are sufficient grounds within my arguments for Refusal of this Application without fear of the Inspector overturning it.

Failing that, there are also sufficient further grounds for Deferral until the legal position has been clarified or the Safety aspects of the Crossley St entrance regarding the dimensions of its width have been examined and laid before the Committee to their satisfaction.

I would like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity of  speaking to you and for ploughing through the 50 pages of my dossier.

I am willing to answer any points you may wish to put.

Tesco at Little Lever - Dossier - Final Points, Summary and Conclusion

FINAL POINTS, SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

The Application before you attempts to show that it is of minimal scale, will have little effect on the already acute traffic situation at the Junction, doesn’t warrant an investigation into the effect on the vitality and viability of other businesses in the Village Centre and farther afield and even comes up with the absurd assertion that it will actually increase Footfall in the existing Centre.

The devil, as usual is in the detail.

I hope that the Points that I have raised and the arguments I have put forward, lift the lid on what is actually proposed and the consequences and implications involved.

The Committee, in my view, must firstly decide if the ‘Uplift’ argument is sustainable. I strongly suggest that it is false and disingenuous.

Should the Application be refused and go to Appeal, I am confident that the Inspector, (who is reputedly more of a pedant than I am), will agree.

If the Committee agree with me on this point, then my arguments incontrovertibly show that the Proposal is not in accordance with the Local Plan and the Application should be Refused.

Beyond this, on Traffic matters, if any aspect of the Highways plan – particularly relating to the one-way system and the effect of Crossings on the free flow of traffic - is deemed to be unacceptable to the Committee, then I suggest that the Application is Deferred until re-modelling is redone without those aspects to show that the Junction operates within capacity.

Otherwise, removal of any of these aspects by Planning Condition might result in Consent being given with the Junction exceeding capacity

I thank you all for your forbearance in reading this dossier and wish you well with your deliberations.

Tesco at Little Lever - Dossier - Point No 15

Point No 15 - Potentially better end uses for the Pennine Pets Site

A recent presentation by the Planning Department at the Area Forum explained that there was a need for an extra 700 + dwellings to be built or brought back into occupation across the Borough each year for the next 15 years.

The Land Allocations Exercise examined sites across the Borough and carried out a Sustainability Appraisal for each one with a view to identifying what end purpose each site could be used for.

Many of the proposed ‘End Uses’ were for housing, presumably to go some way towards satisfying the above need.

One noticeable absence from the exercise was the Pennine Pets site.

However, without carrying out a Sustainability Assessment on this site, a proposal was put forward to extend the Town Centre Boundary of Little Lever to include it.

I find this extremely puzzling if not perverse.

This decision was taken in the face of there being an existing Planning Consent for the Site No 74765/06 for the building of 80 + dwellings.

This consent expired on 10^th Oct 2010 but a further Application (No 85003/10) was received in September 2010 for the extension of the time limit for the implementation of the previous consent.

This is still extant and against the Council.

The boundary extension proposal might be viewed as being premature and presumptuous.

It would only make sense if and when Planning Consent was given by the Planning Committee to the Superstore proposal before you.

If Consent for the was refused, then extending the Town Centre Boundary is a nonsense.

This might possibly be explained by the contents of the following e-mail

which might show a degree of bias against this Housing proposal.

If, however, the Site had been allocated for Housing during the exercise, then the owner might feel obliged to renegotiate a sale to Wainhomes.

The benefits that would accrue to Bolton Council would be as follows.

• The housing development would contribute to the stated need for the building of some 700+ houses per year for the next 15 years across the Borough.
• The Developer of the 88 dwellings had committed to providing £238,000 in Section 106 monies.
• A proportion of the dwellings would be for Affordable Housing.
• The New Homes Bonus Scheme would produce over six years some £600,000 un-ring-fenced monies for the Council as well as an identical amount in Council Tax.
• Such a housing development would also increase the amount of spending power in the Village.

This contrasts with £60,000 (was £18,750) Section 106 monies from the Superstore a ridiculously low amount for a store that would turnover £19million annually.  It wouldn’t even block pave the other side of Market St

Tesco at Little Lever - Dossier - Point No 14

Response to Officer’s Report

Point 14 -Other Points in Brief

Statement:- “Vehicular access to 15 Ainsworth Road would be more difficult as a result of the additional traffic attracted to the store and the Applicant has agreed to provide an alternative access to the property from Crossley Street.”

Response:- Physically impossible. Check it out on site visit.

Statement:- Ainsworth Road between the site junction and Victory Road would be provided with traffic calming measures to compensate for any increase in traffic.

Response:- Since when could traffic calming ‘compensate ‘ for an increase in traffic? All it would do would be to slow things down thus increasing congestion.

Statement:- The carriageway in the main junction would be resurfaced in a contrasting surfacing material to encourage speed reduction.

Response :- Thus increasing tailbacks and congestion.

Statement:- A puffin crossing would be provided on Market Street to accommodate the pedestrian desire line between the south side of Little Lever and the proposed supermarket. The crossing would have the added advantage of creating gaps in the flow of through traffic on the A6053 to help traffic emerging from Ainsworth Road and Lever Street.

Response:- Thus slowing down the through traffic increasing tailbacks and congestion and encouraging the use of Rat Runs.

Statement:- The existing zebra crossing on Church Street would be replaced by a puffin crossing to provide safer conditions for pedestrians. This would have the added advantage of creating slightly longer gaps in the flow of through traffic on the A6053 to help traffic emerging from Ainsworth Road and Lever Street.

Response:- Ditto the last point.

Statement:- Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications to be determined in accordance with policies in the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Applications which are not in accordance with Development Plan policies should be refused unless material considerations justify granting permission.

Similarly, proposals which accord with Development Plan policies should be approved unless there are material considerations which would justify a refusal of permission.

It is therefore necessary to decide whether this proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and then take account of other material considerations.

Response:-  If the Committee reject the ‘Uplift’ argument and accept that, at 1.83 times the size of store recommended in the Development Plan, the proposal is NOT in accordance with that Plan, then the Application should be Refused.

Statement:- Impact of the Traffic Regulation Order and one way system on local businesses –

Concern has been expressed by a number of local land owners and existing businesses that both the one way system and double yellow lines will constrain the businesses.

It is not considered that this will be the case.

 If granted approval and developed out the Tesco’s car parking area would provide easy access to adjoin (sic) businesses without the need to find alternative ways of driving along Lever Street.

In addition, this assumes that customers to the businesses (flower shop and beauty salon) access the site from the Market Street/Church Street direction;

Response:- It certainly IS considered to be the case by the Property and Business owners.

Mr Howcroft has just spent a fortune buying Sharples Court off the Council to provide parking for the Apartments and Businesses at the Junction end of Lever St.

Since over half of Little Lever is to the East of the Junction, customers from that side who currently nip into Lever St and Sharples Court would be discouraged if they had to go all the way round.

Regarding the Tesco car park – that’s no use to residents of the Flats ‘cos it’s locked up at night. There is nothing in this Application to show Tesco’s agreement to this and in any event, why should people have to do this?

Statement:- What will happen to the vacant store ? – the applicant on behalf of Tesco’s have stated their commitment to letting the property out if and when Tesco’s move out of the store. The property is owned by Tesco’s and therefore it is not;

Response:- ‘It is not ;’ ……….  - What ?????

Statement:- The site has potentially better end uses e.g. residential and/or a new health centre for Little Lever;

Response:-  Where did this come from ?????. There is nothing on the Planning Application documentation that even hints at these alternative end uses.

In my humble view, if the authors of this are the Planning Department, it is no business of theirs to be flying unsupported and irrelevant kites at the last minute.

In any event, both ideas are non-starters. Where would the money come from ?.

The PCT is skint and no housing developer is going to pay the Market price for the store and then knock it down. Conversion of the store to residential would be prohibitively expensive.

If we are talking about potentially better end uses, then let us consider potentially better end uses for the Pennine Pets Site

This is discussed in the final Point 15

Tesco at Little Lever - Dossier - Appendix to Point No 13

Appendix to Point No 13

Tesco at Little Lever - Dossier - Point No 13

Response to parts of the Officer’s Report.

Point No 13

However, Paragraph 4.14 of the Core Strategy also states :-

“The study identifies localised deficiencies in convenience shopping in Westhoughton, Little Lever and the northern parts of the borough around Egerton and BromleyCross, as well as the need to identify easy access to facilities by people facing social exclusion including access to fresh foods.”

It is this statement – and only this statement - which is can be the basis for the justification of this Application

Accepting this, we examine what the BRLS actually says in relation to ‘local deficiencies’

1)      3.85 We are not aware of any published retail requirements for Little Lever. However,

from our own research, we have identified interest in Little Lever from Aldi, which is

seeking a site capable of accommodating a store of around 1,500 sq.m gross

2)      3.93…………… However, despite the existence of a large number of vacant units, these are small and dispersed through the centre so that there are no obvious development opportunities for meeting the requirements of an operator such as Aldi.

3)      5.45 Most of the increase in localised retention in Westhoughton will be met by the

J Sainsbury commitment, which has an estimated convenience goods turnover in

2016 of £21.2m. For Little Lever and Egerton the increase in retained convenience

goods expenditure would be sufficient to support a smaller supermarket of the sort

operated by Somerfield, Aldi, Lidl, Netto or the Coop, together with small stores

operated by independent traders.

4)      In Little Lever, we have already noted, in Section 3, the relatively high satisfaction

rating derived from the survey of pedestrians in relation to existing retail provision,

and this rating may have been improved by the acquisition and improvement of the

Somerfield store by Tesco. Nevertheless, we consider that convenience provision

would be further enhanced by a new store of appropriate scale, and we note Aldi’s

interest in Little Lever as an investment location.

5)      5.83 Moreover, there is a short term, urgent requirement to meet localised deficiencies

which exist in Westhoughton, Little Lever, and Egerton-Edgworth. The J Sainsbury

commitment will meet the immediate needs of Westhoughton and Aldi is currently

expressing interest in Little Lever.

1  

These are the ONLY references in the BRLS to the size of a store which would satisfy the deficiency in Little Lever.

(Please note:- References to Somerfield, Lidl, Netto or the Coop only occur where Egerton is also being discussed. All other references to Little Lever alone only mention Aldi.)

However there is reference in the BRLS in Table 5.8 (repeated in the Officers Report) to the projected localized quantitative need (by expenditure) by 2016 of £9.23m. (See Appendix)

Using the BRLS optimum sales density of £10,181 per sq metre per annum this would equate to a store with a net retail area of 907 sq metres.

This in turn would indicate a Gross floorspace area of 1,510 sq metres

Happily this coincides with the only size quoted in the BRLS (1,500 sq metres) which is also the standard typical size of an Aldi store.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the BRLS is identifying a localized deficiency in convenience spending in Little Lever of £9.23m by 2016 which would require a store of the size 1,510 sq metres Gross with a net retail area of 907 sq metres.

This Application, for a store of 2,800 sq metres Gross with a net retail area of 1,728 sq metres is therefore neither called for, supported nor justified by the Bolton Core Strategy or the BRLS and thus the Application is NOT in accordance with the Local Plan.

Tesco at Little Lever - Dossier - Appendix to Point No 12

Appendix to Point No 12

The findings of the Retail and Leisure study actually lays out the requirements for additional convenience floorspace in periods of five years. 2011-2016, 2016-2021 and 2021-2026.

If we examine the figures in the Retail and Leisure survey we can find the Convenience Floorspace Requirement for the whole of the Borough at each of the five year points in this plan ie 2011, 2016, 2021, and 2026.

There are two sets of figures. The second set includes an allowance for overtrading at existing stores.

These are as follows:-

Without an allowance for overtrading:-

Year	Net floorspace requ’d In	Gross floorspace requ’d
2011	- 476 sq metres	- 733 sq metres
2016	- 1,256 sq metres	- 1932 sq metres
2021	+ 2,726 sq metres	+ 4,195 sq metres
2026	+ 6,510 sq metres	+ 10,016 sq metres

With an allowance for overtrading:-

Year	Net floorspace requ’d In	Gross floorspace requ’d
2011	+ 793 sq metres	+ 1,220 sq metres
2016	- 24 sq metres	- 37 sq metres
2021	+ 3,922 sq metres	+ 6,034 sq metres
2026	+ 7,671 sq metres	+ 11,801 sq metres

These figures take into account the Sainsbury’s development at Cricketers Way (which is now trading) and the proposed Tesco development at Central St (Back of the Old Post Office and Victoria Hall) which has outline planning permission for a 7,973 sq metre food store but has yet to be built.

They do not take into account the Tesco Longcauseway development which is now open. This Longcauseway development contains net convenience floorspace of 2,792 sq metres.

The figures also do not take into account the Tesco Kearsley development or any recent or proposed increases in convenience floorspace at Middlebrook or indeed the opening of the Spar store in Little Lever.

Summary of what the above means:-

(Adding in the Longcauseway figures and allowing for overtrading)

Year	Net floorspace requ’d In	Gross floorspace requ’d
2011	- 1,999 sq metres
2016	- 2,768 sq metres
2021	+ 1,130 sq metres
2026

This means:-

2011 - The Borough already has 1,999 sq metres of convenience retail floorspace more than it requires

2016 - The Borough will still have 2,768 sq metres of convenience retail floorspace more than it requires

Between 2016 and 2021, the Borough will require an additional 1,130 sq metres of convenience retail floorspace.

Tesco at Little Lever - Dossier - Point No 12

Response to parts of the Officer’s Report.

Point No 12 

The Officers Report states the following as supporting this Application

1)      Core Strategy policy P2 of the Bolton Core Strategy states that the Council will plan for

additional convenience floor space of up to 10,000 m² in town, district and local centres where local communities have good access.

Response:- This needs to be qualified.

Bolton Core Strategy states the following:-

“Retail and Leisure

4.14 The Core Strategy proposes to increase the quantity of retail floor space in the borough,

concentrated mostly in Bolton town centre. This reflects the objective of creating a transformed

and vibrant town centre, as well as complying with Government advice contained in PPS4.

This approach is supported by the findings of the council’s Retail and Leisure Study. This identifies a requirement up to 2026, of between 9,200 and 11,000 square metres for ‘convenience’ goods and between 74,300 and 134,600 square metres for ‘comparison’ goods, in addition to schemes that already have planning permission.

This additional floor space should be developed after 2016.”

This in itself needs further qualification in as much as the BRLS figures identify schemes that already have planning permission as being Sainsbury’s –Cricketers Way and Central Street Bolton.

It does not include the recently opened Tesco at Longcauseway Farnworth.

Including this development but ignoring the various other smaller Supermarkets which have been built since then and recalculating the figures from the BRLS the result is as follows:- (See Appendix)

The Bolton Core Strategy is saying that there is no need for additional Convenience retail floorspace until after 2016.

The recalculated figures show that thereafter – between 2016 and 2021 there is a need for an extra 1,130 sq metres. (See Appendix)

This is 598 sq metres less than the proposed 1,728 sq metres proposed for Pennine Pets.

The statement in the Retail and Planning document and in the Officers report fails to qualify the figure of 10,000 sq metres with the time frame and the additional capacity already built (by Tesco) since the Retail and Leisure Report. It is therefore misleading.

Conclusion

This part of the statement in Core Strategy Policy P2 thus cannot justify the need for this development in 2013 and is irrelevant to the Application.