home - committee - volume - faq's - help -search - meeting - previous - next

V28-283 : W17336 - LAND OFF BELVEDERE ROAD, LOWESTOFT

Outline application for a mixed use development comprising retail, leisure, heritage development and associated car parking and access.

The report of the Corporate Director (Regeneration and Environment) outlined an application for the development of a site of 7.66 hectares consisting of land between Waveney Drive/Horn Hill/Belvedere Road and the inner harbour of Lowestoft. The proposal was in the form of an outline application at this stage, and a thorough written report had been submitted to members which identified the key policy issues and set out the officer perceptions of the planning benefits and disbenefits of the proposal. It was the policy, principle and impact of the scheme that needed to be considered at this point rather than the detail.

The Head of Planning advised that the application was a controversial one, which would impact on many different parts of the town. The application had its problems, mainly in terms of retail policy, but considerable benefits were also made clear in the report. What the Panel were asked to do tonight was to give the Developer sufficient confidence to be able to market the site and gauge the level of interest from the retail and leisure industry, and then to come back to the Panel with a detailed proposal, knowing that if the scheme met the requirements of the Panel, planning permission would be forthcoming.

The application was submitted in October 1999, when it was described as "the Lowestoft town centre expansion scheme". In November 1999 consultation had taken place with neighbouring residential, industrial and commercial properties, together with relevant statutory organisations, local authorities, interest groups and other organisations, and the results of those consultations were set out in the report. An important objection came from the Highways Agency, which felt that more information was needed as to the impact of extra traffic on the A12. They had directed refusal of the outline application as a holding measure, but added that they could review this position if satisfactory discussions could be concluded.

Suffolk County Council had recommended approval, but suggested that occupancy conditions be placed on the non-food elements of the proposal. The Head of Planning was not recommending this, as it could restrict the Developer in his marketing of the site.

Turning to the policy context of the application, the Head of Planning advised that, on a national basis, the Government was encouraging the use of brownfield sites, the development of mixed use schemes and the location of major traffic generators in places well served by public transport.

It was important that development plans were broadly followed unless there were good reasons not to. There were strong policy safeguards regarding the health of town centres, stating that new retail sites should preferably be located in town centres, with edge of centre sites next and finally out of centre sites, only if there was a clear need for the development. Regarding transport, PPG13 encouraged the use of the planning system to reduce car use and encourage sustainable modes of transport such as cycling, walking and public transport.

Under Waveney's Local Plan, adopted in 1996, Policy E2 allocated most of the application site for employment uses. Since then, the Government's PPG3 had been published, indicating that local authorities should look at such sites and decide if they were suitable for other uses. The Draft County Structure Plan advised that such land could be released, so long as there was adequate provision elsewhere, and the proposal could lead to regeneration. The Head of Planning felt that the application site could be safely released from employment allocation, as the land had been unused for some time.

Regarding protecting the health of the Town Centre, the Head of Planning agreed that from a planning point of view a development of this nature could not be accommodated in the Town Centre. The Developer felt the site should be considered as "edge of centre". Government advice described edge of centre as being 2-300m from the primary shopping area, and people should find it reasonably convenient to walk to the Town Centre from the new development. This would generate "linked trips", whereby the new development could be said to be supporting the town centre. If this was not the case a new development could, in effect, be competing with a town centre.

The Developer felt that given improved linkages, the development would support the Town Centre. Officers remained to be entirely convinced, feeling that there would be difficulty moving between the development and the town centre without new links, and there was not enough information available at present on what improvements could be made. The Developer would also develop the whole site in one go, as an integrated scheme.

The question of need was also important. The Developer's view was that Lowestoft had lost a lot of trade from the town centre to out-of-town stores. He believed his "edge of centre" development would claw back some of that lost trade, support the town centre and overcome any loss of trade from competition. He would also contribute to transport improvements and the relocation of KYE. Officers remained cautious regarding these claims, believing linkages were not effectively established and that competition may result from allowing the development to take place. The Developer felt that because the development was edge of centre, there should be no harmful impact. The Council had employed its own consultants, and the results of that consultation were summarised in the Director's report. The consultants were not convinced the site was edge of centre, and felt that the impact on the town centre may be higher than the Developer claimed.

As the application was in outline, the end users were not known, so it was difficult to assess the exact impact. It was the Head of Planning's view, however, that the impact on the town centre would be somewhat greater than estimated by the Developer. Regarding London Road South, there should not be so much of a problem as there was a different mix of shops there, including a high proportion of specialist shops.

Transport impacts were outlined in Appendix 3 of the report. A Traffic Impact Assessment had been submitted which showed an increase in traffic using the A146/Victoria Road/Waveney Road route to the site, assuming the South Lowestoft Relief Road was not constructed.

The applicant had prepared an environmental impact assessment for the scheme showing no significant impact, but this was not complete and a thorough Environmental Impact Assessment would need to be carried out prior to any planning permission being issued.

Appendix 5 to the report showed the regeneration strategy for Kirkley recommended by the Waveney Partnership following their commissioning of a report on the matter. The application was broadly in line with the recommendations of that report, and fitted in with the broader regeneration picture for this part of Lowestoft. There was also another scheme, which had not yet been brought to the Panel, for the development of the Mann Egerton site, which could have the effect of creating a positive linkage from the South Quay development through to London Road South, with the improvement of the Clifton Road car park and the construction of a link road to the proposed Mill Road junction on the South Lowestoft Relief Road on-line improvement. This was an important ingredient to the present proposal, but could be considered separately. There was therefore the possibility of creating a critical mass of development which could change the image of the area as a whole.

There was also the possibility of achieving developer contributions towards improvements to transport measures in South Lowestoft, particularly in the way the roads adjoining the application site were affected. A package of transport measures for South Lowestoft identified in the Suffolk County Council Local Transport Plan included the Relief Road and improved links to the Town Centre, and this scheme could contribute to the achievement of those proposals.

The scheme included a leisure and tourism element, including a small multiplex cinema. There were no policy difficulties with that, which being at the eastern end of the site would fit in with the triangle of tourism which existed in this part of the town.

In summary, the Head of Planning advised that Appendix 6 listed a series of issues for negotiation which members could refer to in granting permission. The application was a departure from the development plan policy, and officers were not convinced the site was edge of centre or that the development would have no adverse effect on the Town Centre or that there was a need for this type of development, which would be a mixture of food, non- food and leisure retail. On the other hand, officers were conscious that grant of planning permission would bring important potential regeneration benefits to this part of Lowestoft.

KYE currently occupied part of the site, and they were a major employer in the town. The Scheme would facilitate the relocation of this growing company, and possibly a joint venture with another company. Planning permission would give a sign of business confidence in Kirkley, an area whose problems were identified at European level with Objective 2 Status, at National Level with SRB and at regional level in the draft regeneration plan guidance. Looking beyond Kirkley, it had proved difficult to modernise the centre of Lowestoft, and the grant of permission would change the nature of development pressures in the town, with the possibility of the town expanding towards Lake Lothing.

The Head of Planning therefore recommended that planning permission be granted, and asked that members look at the general picture and identify where the balance of advantage lay. They should also carefully consider the recommendations regarding the Section 106 Agreement, the Highways Agency direction of refusal and the need to progress major aspects of the overall package such as Mann Egerton and KYE. Amended recommendations were circulated which gave greater flexibility as to the mechanism by which both of these major projects would be achieved. There were questions still to be answered in respect of this application, and the Panel should be sure it had enough management control of the issues.

Before questions from the Panel, the Chief Executive made two points. Regarding the principle of the proposal, the importance of the Panel's decision was that it should give comfort to the Developer in approaching the market. But members should bear in mind that, if they granted outline permission, then unless there were difficulties over any of the detailed issues to which the grant of outline permission was subject, they would not be able to re-visit the decision to approve in principle. So, for example, if members felt the impact on the Town Centre outweighed regeneration, they should refuse permission now.

The second issue was regarding the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This would need to be completed and re-advertised and brought back to the Panel for consideration. At that point, the principle of approval or refusal could, in fact, be reconsidered if the Assessment was sufficiently adverse.

Before commencement of questions and the debate all members declared receipt of correspondence from Crompton Marine.

Councillor Kelly asked whether, if there was no Lake Lothing, the site would be considered edge of centre or Town Centre. Mr Chalk advised that it would still be questionable, but the eastern edge would be just within 200m of it. The main point, however, was the ease of making linked trips, and regardless of distance the A12 and other nearby roads were very busy, and psychologically the distance would be increased as these roads acted as barriers. Improved linkages were required. Councillor Kelly also asked whether, if permission was granted, it would restrict the Council to working with the current applicant, or if another developer could take over the scheme. Mr Chalk said that permission was not personal to the applicant, however that applicant had invested money in studies and acquired some interest in the land, and any future developer would have to go through the same processes. The scheme was a comprehensive one, and the likelihood was that if the present applicant walked away, the scheme would not take place.

Councillor Gower asked whether the Council had had any input to the content of the scheme, whether it would be able to have such input at a later stage, and whether the Panel would have input on the individual elements of the scheme when it came to detail. Mr Chalk replied that, essentially, no, the scheme was presented to members some years ago. The nature of the proposal was that the developer advised the Council that he could acquire the site, and what he wanted to do with it was set out in the report. Given the relatively low demand for such development in the town, the Developer would stand the best chance of marketing the site if it had relatively unconstrained planning permission. So the Council had not made an input into the nature of the development, but had recommended design principles. The Panel could add whatever conditions they felt appropriate, but the more conditions, the more difficult it would be to market the site. Members would have an input into such matters as design and layout, but regarding the nature of occupants, now was the time to make any conditions on that matter.

Councillor Rose asked whether, if permission was granted and the Environmental Impact Assessment could not be resolved, permission could then be withdrawn. Mr Cox advised that yes, the EIA should identify the likely impacts of the development and outline amelioration measures necessary to dispense with or reduce such impacts. At the moment the Assessment submitted fell short of what was required, and a thorough, challenge proof Assessment would need to be carried out and advertised. Councillor Rose then asked how long it would take to carry out the EIA and whether it would be prudent to defer the application until this was available, and was advised that it could take four to six weeks or perhaps longer. Such matters as types, locations and dimensions of buildings would need to be assessed, but it would not be wise to defer approval as an important part of the proposal was the relocation of KYE, which should not be delayed. Mr Chalk added that other issues such as the Mann Egerton proposal would take just as long to sort out as the EIA, and that all of these matters would need to be resolved before any planning permission could be issued.

Councillor Aldous asked whether there had been any marketing as yet to attract end users, as the Council's retail expert had cast doubt on likely demand. Mr Chalk advised that as far as he was aware, no formal marketing exercise had taken place. He added that with most applications the Council would ask the names of the main users, and if they wished members could add a condition to, for example, ensure that only bulky goods were sold on the site. Councillor Aldous also wished to know whether it was likely that the Highways Agency would lift their direction of refusal. Mr Thorndyke answered that yes, it was likely. The Highways Agency had issued the holding direction as there were concerns that analysis of the junction had not been carried out accurately enough yet. They also wished to explore more fully the possibility of improving the capacity of the junction using other land. Councillor Thorne added a question on the future de-trunking of the A12, and Mr Thorndyke said that while the A12 south of the junction was due to be de-trunked from April 2001, the junction was just on the limit and would remain under the control of the Highways Agency.

Councillor Rodgers said that if permission was granted, she would like the Panel to have continuous input on the scheme. Mr Chalk said that the recommendations should be framed in such a way that members were happy they had control over the way the project progressed.

Councillor Hinton asked whether the Norfolk and Suffolk Chamber of Commerce had commented on the retail impact study which had been supplied to them, and was advised that they had not, although it had been in their possession for a month. Councillor Hinton was also concerned that congestion at the A146 mini roundabout was predicted to increase. Mr Thorndyke advised that it was difficult to predict years ahead, but that if the scheme was given permission, without the Relief Road there would be congestion at this roundabout particularly at the afternoon peak. If the relief road was constructed, this would be reduced.

Councillor Hinton also mentioned consultation that had taken place on the proposal both at the East Point Pavilion and then later in London Road South. Mr Chalk advised that the first consultation that she mentioned had been arranged by the Developer, not the Council, to promote and create awareness of the scheme, and no formal result had been passed to the Council. The second consultation mentioned had actually been regarding the Relief Road, not the South Quay Development.

Councillor Baxter recognised that the relocation of KYE was pivotal to the application, and asked whether the land they relocated to would be owned by the applicant. Mr Cox advised that the continued presence of KYE in Lowestoft was desired, but how this was achieved was not a matter for this Panel. The essential thing was that they remained, how it happened was irrelevant in the context of determining this planning application.

Councillor Partridge noted that the Developer suggested up to 1,000 jobs could be created by the development plus extra with the expansion of KYE. He asked what the likelihood of this was. Mr Chalk was sceptical that there would be as many as 1,000 new jobs, as the development would be likely to attract some retailers from elsewhere in Lowestoft, so to some extent there would be moving around of jobs. However, Government advice was to put weight on other benefits as well as employment benefits.

Following this question and answer session, and in accordance with Standing Order 45(3), a non-member of the Panel, Councillor Young, who was the Ward Member for the application site, addressed the Panel. Councillor Young said that he was a newsagent in Kirkley but did not believe the proposal would affect his business materially, and so felt he did not have an interest to declare. When the proposal was first announced he was slightly disappointed as he would have preferred a commercial development. The Kirkley Business Association supported the scheme, but were concerned that the Mann Egerton element should come on stream ahead of it or at the same time. Also, the expansion of KYE had put the commercial aspect into perspective, as this would be real job creation.

Councillor Young had studied the Retail Impact Assessment and was concerned at impact on Safeway in Lowestoft, Safeway in Beccles, Somerfield and Tesco as these stores between them employed 913 people. His own research indicated that up to 175 of these jobs could be at risk. There could also be an impact on the Great Mills store and the North Quay stores. The Study had not included possible impact on Rainbow, Lidl, the Tesco High Street store and the proposed Aldi store in Commercial Road. Also a 40% increase in traffic would not be unrealistic.

Councillor Young hoped members would see the potential for regeneration in Kirkley, but realised that there were two sides to the coin and left it to the Panel to make their decision.

Commencing the debate, Councillor Aldous would have preferred a more mixed development, perhaps including housing. However, market forces were such that residential or office development would not be viable, and it appeared that the only financially viable scheme was that before members, and there were some doubts about that too. The regeneration issue was the most important, and for that reason Councillor Aldous felt the principle of the application to be acceptable.

Councillor Kelly agreed that the regeneration issue was a prime factor. If the application was accepted in principle, the impact on the rest of the South Quay area could be significant. Councillor Kelly would like to see the final scheme to be close to that originally presented to members some years previously, as that would draw people into the town.

Councillor Gower said that he would have been happier considering an application projected around a third river crossing, which would be an essential element in linking both sides of the river. However, things were in the hands of market forces. The Council could not afford to develop the site itself, and had to rely on the market. An entrepreneur was willing to take a gamble on the site but he would call the tune, and while most members would prefer to see industry back on the site, it seemed that tourism/leisure uses would be the dominant factor, with no allowance for even light industry on the site. Councillor Gower found that distressing as smaller firms operated along the lake, and others had shown an interest.

Councillor Gower suggested a pedestrian/cycle bridge might form part of the development. Also, might not a water bus service be considered as both a means of improving links and a tourist attraction. It would also be desirable to attract the International Sailing Craft Association's museum to the site. Regarding the Aldi store to be built along Commercial Road, Councillor Gower felt the present application would have an effect on that. Finally, Councillor Gower was surprised that the developer had not considered a high quality residential waterfront development, as this could prove quite lucrative.

Mr Chalk advised members that specific facilities such as a foot bridge or water bus, though good ideas, should not be insisted on as these would rely on third parties and could result in the scheme not going ahead. It was also not in the Developer's power to secure the boat museum. The Developer was aware of the Aldi proposal and had not objected to it. Finally, residential development would be a possibility but would attract objections from Associated British Ports as it could lead to a statutory nuisance threat from port activities. This could be overcome, but would slow up the development.

Councillor Cracknell said he would hate to see Lowestoft lose this development. He lived in Beccles, where many residents travelled to Norwich for leisure, and would like to see some of that trade go to Lowestoft. There were brownfield sites in Beccles which local people would like to see developed, but developers did not come along too often. The application site had been derelict for years, and the development could only be good for Lowestoft.

Councillor Partridge noted that there was no queue of industries waiting to relocate to Lowestoft, or developers looking for opportunities. He did not know what would happen to the site if the development did not go ahead, and moved approval of the application. This was duly seconded by Councillor Rodgers.

Mr Cox advised that while there appeared to be robust support for the scheme, members should take this opportunity to address any points over which there remained concern.

Councillor Kelly said that this quality project was not a retail park accessed via a bypass, but was in the middle of a town and must therefore be worthwhile.

Mr Chalk reminded members that Appendix 6 of the Director's report set out the key issues for negotiation with the Developer which would be addressed in the Section 106 Agreement. This would form the basis for granting the planning permission.

Councillor Aldous said members did not want to impose too onerous conditions, but on the other hand needed to guide the development to ensure that it would be a catalyst for regeneration. The site was in the centre of Lowestoft, it had links to the town centre, the railway, the beach and London Road South. There could be future development to the west, and those links should be looked at closely. Lake Lothing and the bridge were major assets to the town, and should be made use of. Finally he would like to see CCTV incorporated into the development.

Councillor Kelly felt that while tourism was a growth industry, aspects of the application such as the boat museum would not bring in thousands of visitors, so it would be necessary to find out what kind of outlets would pull people in. Councillor Winterton added that care should be taken not to replicate what was available in the town centre.

Mr Chalk advised that in the recommendations officers had recommended that the Panel have control over the design and layout of the application, but had not recommended an occupancy condition. If members felt strongly that they should have an input as to what outlets operated on the site, they would have to make that clear now so the applicant knew how to market the site.

Councillor Kelly felt it sufficient that the Developer bear in mind what members had been saying.

Councillor Rodgers ended the debate by saying that the application was an opportunity for something good and different in the town which would make Lowestoft special.

A vote was taken on the amended recommendations and they were unanimously supported.

RESOLVED

1. That planning permission for the South Quay development, reference W17336, be granted subject to:

(a) the prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement dealing with those issues identified in Appendix 6 to the report of the Corporate Director (Regeneration and Environment), ie those issues identified under the headings "Quality of the Scheme", "Mitigation Measures" and "Regenerative Benefits";

(b) the imposition of planning conditions covering:

(i) site layout
(ii) design of buildings
(iii) car parking
(iv) landscaping
(v) access;

(c) the lifting of the holding direction of refusal imposed by the Highways Agency;

(d) The receipt, advertisement and consideration by the Panel of all relevant and necessary information relating to the Environmental Impact Assessment;

(e) Satisfactory reassurances regarding the relocation of KYE within Lowestoft;

(f) Satisfactory reassurances regarding progress of the Mann Egerton scheme.

2 That the application be referred to The Executive because of the policy implications of the South Quay Scheme.

3 That, subject to approval by The Executive, the application be referred to the Secretary of State as a major departure from the development plan.

The meeting was concluded at 8.25pm.

Chairman

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL - 30/08/00

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL - 30/08/00

118

123

Volume 28 Minute 282

powered by Oultwood Web Technology

© Waveney District Council