1 Tesco stores matter 4.9 statement

Matter 4.9

Representor ref no. 878645

HEARING STATEMENT

SWALE LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION

IN RESPECT OF MATTER 4.9

HOUSING SITE ALLOCATIONS

TESCO STORES LTD

NOVEMBER 2015

Author:

Mark Buxton

Report Status:

Final

Issue Date:

04 November 2015

CgMs Ref:

MB/17633

© CgMs Limited

No part of this report is to be copied in any way

without prior written consent.

Every effort is made to provide detailed and accurate

information, however, CgMs Limited cannot be held

responsible for errors or inaccuracies within this report.

© Ordnance Survey maps reproduced with the

sanction of the controller of HM Stationery Office. Licence No: AL 100014723

Hearing Statement Swale Local Plan Examination Tesco Stores Limited Matter 4.9 Representor ref no.878645

CgMs Ltd © 3/12 MB/17633

Introduction

1.1 This Statement has been prepared on behalf of Tesco Stores Ltd (‘Tesco’) in

respect of their interests at Crown Quay Lane, Sittingbourne. The site is

identified in the draft Swale Borough Local Plan for 474 dwellings, open space

and habitat creation under Policy A9.

1.2 CgMs are instructed to appear at the Examination on behalf of Tesco in respect

of this emerging housing allocation. We will therefore be attending in respect of

both Policy A9 and also Policy ST4: Meeting the Local Plan development targets.

Any changes to Policy A9 which may result from the Examination will also

impact the table of allocations within Policy ST4 (Table 4.3.4). This Statement

therefore applies to both policies but focuses on the allocation at Land at Crown

Quay Lane.

Context

1.3 The Inspector has posed a number of questions in respect of Matter 4.9:

Housing Allocations

Does each of the housing site allocation policies:

Demonstrate positive planning to maximise the quantum of sustainable

housing development?

Provide accurate information regarding site boundaries, access and other

constraints?

Allow sufficient flexibility in open space and other requirements to enable

the site to be delivered effectively?

Demonstrate that it is deliverable within the planned timescale?

Not rely for its delivery on documents, such as development briefs or SPD,

outside the Local Plan, consistent with the 2012 Regulations?

1.4 We explore these matters below having regard to our duly made objections to

the Publication Version of the ‘Bearing Fruits’ consultation.

© CgMs Limited

No part of this report is to be copied in any way

without prior written consent.

Every effort is made to provide detailed and accurate

information, however, CgMs Limited cannot be held

responsible for errors or inaccuracies within this report.

© Ordnance Survey maps reproduced with the

sanction of the controller of HM Stationery Office.

Licence No: AL 100014723


CgMs Ltd © 4/12 MB/17633

Summary of representations to the draft Swale

Borough Local Plan Part 1

1.5 We briefly set out below a summary of our representations relevant to this issue

for ease of reference.

We consider the Council is being too cautious in its approach to housing

numbers at Crown Quay Lane, and should be optimising rather than

constraining the redevelopment potential of this large, sustainable,

brownfield site.

We consider Land at Crown Quay Lane should be allocated as a

residential based mixed use redevelopment opportunity, including

provision for suitable and complementary retail and commercial uses.

We object to the inclusion of Gypsy & Traveller (G&T) pitches on site.

The developable area of the site is constrained by the flood zone with the

remainder of the land needed for market housing and appropriately

controlled retail/commercial uses as part of a mixed use redevelopment.

Inclusion of G&T pitches could compromise the viability of the proposals.

We do not consider that the draft Local Plan is sufficiently aspirational as

advocated by paragraph 154 of the NPPF.

We therefore seek wording changes to draft Policy A9, and

consequentially also to policy ST4, as set out in our representations.

1.6 In response to the representations received and by way of update, we note that

Swale Borough Council has published working draft Pre-Examination Proposed

Modifications in October 2015 (SBC/PS/036).

1.7 With regard to my client’s interests we note that it is proposed to amend the

opening paragraph of Policy ST4 to refer to the development quanta as minima

to be achieved in respect of each allocation. Accordingly, Crown Quay Lane

would be expected to deliver a minimum of 465 (sic) dwellings.

1.8 Furthermore, we note that it is proposed to add a sentence to the supporting

text to Policy A9 at paragraph 6.5.12 to keep open space provision under review

at the more detailed site assessment stage.


CgMs Ltd © 5/12 MB/17633

1.9 Whilst these changes are welcomed they do not fully address our

representations.

Response to Inspector’s Questions

1.10 With particular regard to Policy A9: Land at Crown Quay Lane we seek to

respond to each of the Inspector’s questions below.

Does the housing site allocation policy demonstrate positive planning to

maximise the quantum of sustainable housing development?

1.11 No. We consider the Council has been unduly conservative in its calculation of

the dwelling capacity at Crown Quay Lane. There is also inconsistency in the

figures cited in the draft Local Plan, with Policy A9 and the supporting text

referring to 474 dwellings whilst Policy ST4 refers to 491 dwellings of which 465

are forecast to be delivered within the Plan period.

1.12 We contend that Crown Quay Lane offers greater potential to contribute towards

meeting the identified housing need, both in terms of the developable area and

the density of development within that developable area.

1.13 The site extends to 19.3ha but the 2013-14 SHLAA, which informs the draft Plan

allocations, assumes only 6.1ha of land is available for residential

redevelopment (SHLAA ref SW/337). Applying a nominal density multiplier of

65dph generates a yield of 395 units according to the SHLAA. In allocating the

site for 474 units the Council clearly took the view that the site could deliver

more residential units than envisaged in the SHLAA, albeit considerably short of

the 1,070 dwellings envisaged within the adopted 2010 Sittingbourne Town

Centre and Milton Creek SPD.

1.14 However, we consider provision of 474 units is a significant underestimate of the

site’s potential. We note that other SHLAA sites (e.g. SW/370 and SW/998)

which are smaller than the site at Crown Quay Lane but also are potentially

subject to contamination and flood risk, are promoted for densities of 77dph and

87dph respectively. This in itself could increase provision on site to between

562-634 units, an increase of 88-160 dwellings.


CgMs Ltd © 6/12 MB/17633

1.15 The Local Plan recognises that higher densities will generally be more

appropriate to town centre locations or on larger sites where there is scope to

design a range of different neighbourhoods. Land at Crown Quay Lane is one of

the larger available sites, comprises brownfield land, and lies in an urban and

sustainable location within/on the edge of the town centre.

1.16 We therefore consider it is ideally suited to accommodate more dwellings than

the 474 promoted in the draft Local Plan.

1.17 In addition, as explained further below, we consider the Council has been

unreasonably cautious in its estimation of the extent of developable area within

the wider site.

Does the housing site allocation policy provide accurate information regarding

site boundaries, access and other constraints?

1.18 It should firstly be recognised that Map 6.5.2 within the supporting text to Policy

A9 is a high-level concept plan which should not be interpreted too rigidly.

Separate discussions have taken place with the Council which endorse this view

on the status of the map.

1.19 The concept map shows two areas of land within the allocation for residential

development of 474 dwellings, one within the south-western corner of the site,

and one to the east of Crown Quay Lane which falls outside my client’s

ownership and is understood to be subject of promotion by Bellway Homes. We

understand it is anticipated that land to the west of Crown Quay Lane will deliver

around 80%-85% of the forecast provision under the allocation.

1.20 With the exception of access arrangements the remainder of the wider site area

is identified for ‘open spaces/flood mitigation/landscaping’. Paragraph 6.5.12 of

the draft Plan records that the northern and eastern parts of the site are at risk

of flooding and are therefore not considered suitable for development. The Plan

therefore envisages that 8.7ha of land will fulfil a number of roles including

public open space (7.2ha), flood mitigation, and biodiversity enhancements.

1.21 Whilst there will clearly be open space and other requirements arising directly

from a residential redevelopment of the site, we consider that it is the flood risk


CgMs Ltd © 7/12 MB/17633

which is limiting the Council’s ambitions with regard to housing numbers at

Crown Quay Lane.

1.22 As stated in our representation to the Publication Version of the Plan, the LDF

Panel report of February 2014 recognised that there may be scope for additional

development at Crown Quay Lane if flood risks can be addressed.

1.23 It should also be noted that the concept plan includes an ‘Indicative extent of

tidal flood risk zone 3’ (our emphasis). We understand this is based on the

2009 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment by Halcrow. However, it is noteworthy in

the analysis table 9.3.5 of the SFRA for Development Area 2 (i.e. our site) that

nearly 70% of the site lies within Flood Zones 1 & 2, of which over half is FZ1 in

2010. This is not reflected by the Council’s ‘indicative’ hatched line on the

concept map.

1.24 Furthermore, the 2013-14 SHLAA recognised that the EA did not raise objections

to the principle of the Sittingbourne Town Centre and Milton Creek Masterplan

which promoted a combination of housing and apartments considerably further

to the north, broadly up to Crown Quay Lane where it turns 90 degrees into the

site (within c.50m of Milton Creek). The SHLAA also stated that there are sound

reasons to suggest the exceptions test in the NPPF could be met, but that the

flood risk issue ruled out development of the immediate waterfront (our

emphasis).

1.25 We do not dispute that development of the immediate waterfront is improbable,

but consider the Council’s approach of constraining development to the south-

western corner of the site, over 200m from Milton Creek, is unduly cautious and

stifles the redevelopment potential of this important site.

1.26 In recognition that flooding is a key determinant of the redevelopment potential

of the site, Tesco’s flood consultants have contacted the EA. The EA has

confirmed that ground raising would be acceptable in principle at the site,

without the need for further modelling and without flood storage compensation,

but subject of a Flood Risk Assessment at the appropriate stage of development.

This would result in more of the site being suitable for residential development.

1.27 In terms of other constraints, the site is contaminated as a result of its previous

industrial use. Tesco’s environmental consultants have undertaken site


CgMs Ltd © 8/12 MB/17633

investigations and produced a Phase II Environmental Assessment. This

confirmed evidence of contamination, predominately relating to hydrocarbons

within the soil arisings and within one groundwater sample. Hydrocarbon

‘hotspots’ are therefore considered to be present within the soil and

groundwater in isolated areas across the site. Significantly elevated

concentrations or flows of hazardous ground gases have not however been

identified. The consultants therefore conclude that this represents a moderate

risk for residential end-users should no mitigation measures be undertaken,

which reduces to low risk with appropriate mitigation/remediation. It is

therefore concluded that the site enjoys a low overall risk status for proposed

residential use with standard remediation practices for brownfield

redevelopment.

1.28 Contamination should not therefore constrain the redevelopment potential of the

site for residential or less sensitive end-uses.

Does the housing site allocation policy allow sufficient flexibility in open space

and other requirements to enable the site to be delivered effectively?

1.29 No, for the reasons outlined above. We have serious concerns that the balance

between the provision of open space, driven by concerns over flood risk, and

development is inappropriate and has served to reduce the perceived residential

redevelopment potential of the site. Furthermore, whilst it is accepted that the

landscaping strategy is important for this site, we do not agree that the

development proposals should be led by that strategy. Rather it is a case of

landscaping, open space, and other provision being considered as part of an

integrated approach to redevelopment. We seek wording changes to Policy A9

to reflect this position.

1.30 We are concerned that the Council’s approach, seemingly prioritising the

landscape strategy and open space provision over the redevelopment potential

of the site will stifle and possibly even sterilise development. Given this key

brownfield site has lain vacant for a considerable number of years, we consider

a more positive approach should be adopted to encourage and facilitate its

redevelopment.


CgMs Ltd © 9/12 MB/17633

1.31 The Council’s recognition of the need for greater flexibility with regard to open

space provision via Proposed Modifications to paragraph 6.5.12 is welcomed but

does not go far enough in our opinion.

1.32 Whilst we support the allocation of the site for residential redevelopment of an

appropriate scale, we consider the site is also suitable for retail/commercial

provision as part of a mixed use development. Whilst the inclusion of an

element of retail/commercial floorspace would reduce residential development

potential, the measures outlined above in terms of increasing densities and

promoting a more generous development area would mean that a similar or

even greater number of dwellings could come forward on the residual land

relative to the 474 currently planned.

1.33 We are therefore seeking recognition in the Local Plan that the site is suitable

for a mixed use redevelopment. A purely residential scheme may ultimately

come forward, but we consider the site’s suitability for an appropriate mix of

uses should not be ignored.

1.34 It is clearly the case that suitably controlled retail uses are appropriate on the

site and in this area immediately to the north of the town centre. The site

planning history (notably application number SW/10/1419), coupled with the

recent positive resolutions for the Spirit of Sittingbourne’s (SoS) proposals

including retail floorspace on the Princes Street depot site (app ref:

15/505440/FULL) and the ‘bulky goods’ permission at the former Chainstore

Massacre Warehouse on Eurolink Way (app ref: 15/502471/FULL) reinforce this

viewpoint.

1.35 Furthermore, there is a substantial need identified for additional comparison

retail provision. The CBRE Retail Study (2010) establishes a need for

29,754sqm net by 2025 under the boosted retention rate scenario. Additional

sites, over and above the SoS development, will need to come forward to meet

this level of comparison retail need and to deliver the ‘step-change’ in the retail

offer in Sittingbourne.


CgMs Ltd © 10/12 MB/17633

Does the housing site allocation policy demonstrate that it is deliverable within

the planned timescale?

1.36 We note that more recent publications by the Council, such as the October 2015

SHLAA (SBC/PS/037) and the Update of Housing Land Supply (SBC/PS014a)

now consider that all of the development of 491 dwellings at Crown Quay Lane

can occur during the Plan period.

1.37 We support this position as it reflects our view that the site is capable of being

delivered in the short-medium term subject to bringing forward a viable

redevelopment. As identified above, site constraints can be overcome.

1.38 We do however object to the proposed provision of 5 Gypsy & Traveller pitches

on the site for the reasons set out in our duly-made representation to Policy A9

of the Published Version of the Local Plan. Inclusion of G&T provision on the site

may result in an unviable development. PBA, in their Viability Testing of specific

sites for the Local Plan Addendum Report Part 2, recognise that viability is

marginal at Crown Quay Lane based on the draft CIL rates and 10% affordable

housing provision (CD/013b, para 3.3.3). The inclusion of G&T pitches could tip

the balance.

1.39 In any event, the DCLG revised ‘Planning policy for traveller sites’ (PPTS) issued

in August 2015 is expected to result in a significantly lower target than that

envisaged at the Publication stage of the Local Plan. Whilst options are still

being considered, the Council’s Update Paper (SBC/PS/038) suggests that the

‘majority of the need has already been met’ and ‘the remaining need…for the

entire plan period could be achieved via windfall planning applications’.

1.40 We therefore consider it is not appropriate for these and the other reasons

outlined in our representations, to include provision for G&T pitches at Land at

Crown Quay Lane. G&T provision could adversely affect the deliverability of the

site.


CgMs Ltd © 11/12 MB/17633

Does the housing site allocation policy not rely for its delivery on documents,

such as development briefs or SPD, outside the Local Plan, consistent with the

2012 Regulations?

1.41 Policy A9 as drafted does envisage that development proposals will ‘accord with

a Development Brief SPD that will be adopted by the Borough Council’.

Therefore the site allocation policy does, to an extent, rely on documents

outside the Local Plan for its delivery.

1.42 In accordance with Government guidance, SPDs should be prepared only where

necessary and in line with paragraph 153 of the NPPF. The Guidance goes on to

state: “Where sites are proposed for allocation, sufficient detail should be given

to provide clarity to developers, local communities and other interests about the

nature and scale of development (addressing the ‘what, where, when and how’

questions).”

1.43 We therefore question whether an SPD is necessary for this site which is already

subject of detailed provisions under Policy A9.

1.44 We reserve our position on Gypsy & Travellers given the Council’s need to

respond to the recent Government announcement on PPTS, and their suggestion

that this could reasonably be left to a separate development plan document.

Conclusions

1.45 For the reasons outlined above and in our duly made representations we

consider Policy A9 fails the test of soundness.

1.46 We do not consider the Plan has been positively prepared with regard to Policy

A9 and its supporting text, and consequentially neither has Policy ST4. Land at

Crown Quay Lane has potential to accommodate more development than

promoted in the draft Plan. The policy is not sufficiently aspirational, as

required by the NPPF. It is therefore also not considered to be effective and

deliverable, and is not justified as it fails to consider alternatives in terms of

potential retail/commercial uses.

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/policy/achieving-sustainable-development/plan-making/#paragraph_153


CgMs Ltd © 12/12 MB/17633

1.47 The draft Proposed Modifications to policy ST4 and the supporting text to policy

A9 go some way towards responding to these concerns, but are not considered

sufficient to fully address them.

1.48 We are therefore seeking amended wording to Policy A9 and also ST4 as set out

in our duly made objections to the Publication Version of the Plan.

1 Tesco stores matter 4.9 statement

Documents

Transcript of 1 Tesco stores matter 4.9 statement