ABC PUBLIC COMMITTEE REPORT -...

FUL/2014/1551 1

PUBLIC

COMMITTEE REPORT

Planning Committee 24/07/2014 APPLICATION No. - FUL/2014/1551 Description of Development - Development of a new Class A1 retail unit and associated works Site Address - Land Adjacent to Unit 1 Orchard Retail Park Applicant - Mr Charles Clarke Metric Property Coventry Ltd Ward - Binley and Willenhall RECOMMENDATION Planning Committee are recommended to REFUSE planning permission. INTRODUCTION This application seeks full planning permission for development of a new retail unit and associated works on land adjacent to Unit 1 (Currys PCWorld) at Orchard Retail Park in the south east of the City. The application site lies close to the entrance into the retail park from London Road and covers an area of around 0.42 hectares. The site is currently occupied by a section of the car park serving the existing 6 units on the retail park. Also within the application site are areas of incidental soft landscaping some of which are planted with trees, an existing roundabout at the entrance into the retail park and sections of the existing retail park access roads. The proposed retail unit would be physically attached to the west side elevation of the existing Unit 1 (Currys PC World). It would be 28 metres wide x 53 metres deep and would have a flat roof at a height of 6.8 metres above ground level. The facing brick and cladding materials to the elevations of the proposed unit would match those used on the adjacent existing units. The pedestrian entrance to the unit would be from its south elevation with a canopy feature marking the entrance rising to a height of 7.3 metres which again matches with those of the existing units. The gross floorspace of the proposed unit would be 1430 square metres.

ABC

FUL/2014/1551 2

Servicing for the unit would be provided to the rear with this accessed from the existing service yard for the retail park. The servicing area would be enclosed by palisade fencing to match that to the existing service yard. It is proposed that the unit would be occupied by B & M Bargains and that a wide range of goods would be retailed from the unit including outdoor products (e.g. garden furniture, BBQ accessories), home & living items (e.g. bedding, kitchen utensils), furniture, electronic/electrical goods, toys, DIY products, food & drink, clothing/footwear and pet products. To minimise the extent to which the unit would compete with retail units in the City Centre and District Centres, the applicant is suggesting that a number of conditions could be attached were planning permission to be granted. These conditions would restrict the range of goods that could be sold from the unit to DIY and/or garden goods, furniture, carpets and floor coverings, soft furnishings, camping, boating and caravanning goods, motor vehicle and cycle goods, electrical goods and pets, pet food and pet related products. In addition it is suggested that the following further goods also be permitted but that they be restricted to only a certain floor area of the proposed unit and occupation of the unit by a single retailer: i) Food (up to 167 square metres) ii) Non-fashion clothing and footwear (up to 42 square metres) iii) Toiletries (Up to 70 square metres) iv) Stationary items (Up to 28 square metres) v) Toys (Up to 112 square metres) The applicant states that the proposed retail unit would employ 35 full time equivalent persons once operational. Up to 60 people in total could be employed given that some of the positions would be part-time. The applicant has also advised that they expect the majority of these jobs to be taken by local residents. Construction of the proposed unit would result in the site access road & roundabout having to be redesigned and relocated 5 metres to the west of their present position onto areas of site curtilage currently occupied by grass/shrub planting and car parking. The proposals would result in the loss of 52 of the existing 529 car parking spaces serving the retail park, leaving 477 spaces remaining. 5% of these (i.e. 24 spaces) would be for disabled persons. Cycle parking is provided as part of the scheme for both staff (10 spaces) and customers (4 spaces). The proposed development would result in the loss of 20 trees. 16 new replacement trees and new areas of shrub planting are proposed by way of compensation. Prior to submission of their application, the applicant has undertaken consultation on their proposals with the local community and a Statement of

FUL/2014/1551 3

Community Consultation accompanies their application. Such pre-application consultation comprised a meeting with ward Councillors and a postal survey of local residents. 142 responses were received to the postal survey with 139 residents supporting the scheme and 3 being opposed to it. Key reasons given for supporting the proposals were that the proposed store would be conveniently accessible, it would create new jobs, the store would provide good value for money products, savings on transport costs and increased variety in the existing retail park. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY Planning permission (ref: R/2003/1440) was refused on the 29 August 2003 for erection of a retail unit on the application site. The reason for refusal was as follows: The location of the proposed out of centre retail development would compromise the shopping strategy of the Coventry Development Plan 2001 as set out in Policies S1, S4 & s11 and undermine the objectives of PPG6 and PPG13 in that:

a. It is not clear that any need which may exist cannot be met satisfactorily within the Defined Centre, and sites are available in the City Centre and at Brandon Road District Centre (Policy S4), where there is clearly a suitable site for such a use. This would be in line with the Governments objectives of sustaining and enhancing existing defined centres in accordance with the development plan strategy.

b. The development plan strategy for identifying defined centres as the foci for retail development would be undermined.

c. It has not been demonstrated that a sequential test approach has been adopted in selecting this site.

d. It has not been demonstrated that the site is accessible by a choice of means of transport.

There are no other material circumstances sufficient to outweigh the harm which would be cause to development plan strategies and the interests which they promote. Planning permission (ref: S73/2013/0696) was approved on the 7 August 2013 to allow for the sale of toys from the nearby Units 1-2 & 2a on the retail park. DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES The Development Plan for the site comprises the saved policies of the Coventry Development Plan (CDP) 2001. Saved CDP Policies of relevance to this application are as follows:

OS3 – Local Area Regeneration OS4 – Creating a More Sustainable City OS9 – Access by Disabled People EM5 – Pollution Protection Strategy S1 – Shopping Strategy S11 – Edge of Centre & Out of Centre Retailing

FUL/2014/1551 4

AM1 – An Integrated, Accessible and Sustainable Transport Strategy AM2 – Public Transport AM3 – Bus Provision in Major New Developments AM9 – Pedestrians in New Developments AM12 – Cycling in New Developments AM22 – Road Safety in New Developments BE2 – The Principles of Urban Design BE20 – Landscape Design and Development BE21 – Safety and Security GE1 – Green Environment Strategy GE14 – Protection of Landscape Features

Other planning policy documents are material considerations in assessing the proposals. These comprise relevant Government Guidance and adopted Coventry City Council Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents (SPG/SPD). Relevant Government Guidance is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). In respect of the above-mentioned CDP Policies, the NPPF advises that decision makers may give due weight to such Policies according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. Overall the NPPF introduces a presumption in favour of sustainable development and states that development proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved without delay. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted. The NPPF highlights 12 Core Planning Principles which should underpin decision taking. Principles of relevance to this application are as follows: Planning should pro-actively drive and support sustainable economic

development. It should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of

amenity. Planning should take account of the different roles and character of

different areas which includes promoting the vitality of our main urban areas,

Planning should actively manage patterns of growth to promote sustainable transport choices.

Detailed Policies in the NPPF regarding the vitality of town centres, promoting sustainable transport, requiring good design and the conservation of the natural

FUL/2014/1551 5

environment and policy in the NPPG on ensuring the vitality of town centres are of particular relevance to this application. In terms of City Council Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents (SPG/SPD) the ‘Delivering a More Sustainable City’ SPD is of relevance. CONSULTATION RESPONSES Statutory Consultees Ecologist – Tree protection condition suggested for those trees to be

retained and notes regarding bats, nesting birds, trenching and biodiversity.

Highways – No objection subject to cycle parking being provided as per the ‘Delivering a More Sustainable City’ SPD

Highways Agency - No objection subject to a Construction Management Plan condition.

West Midlands Police – No objection in principle. However, it is advised that

the existing B&M store at Gallagher Retail Park has been the subject of significant criminal activity over the last 12 months (45 recorded crimes) and detailed comments are provided regarding building specification matters that may assist in safeguarding this further unit.

Severn Trent – No objection subject to a drainage details condition.

Coventry Airport – Object to the application as the proposed landscaping would compromise aviation safety. They also recommend, due to the proximity of the proposed building to the airport’s Take-off Climb Surface, that some contingency is considered that will take account of any potential errors during construction. Detailed comments are also provided regarding the need to ensure that construction activities and external lighting do not compromise aviation safety.

Environmental Protection – No objection subject to hours of deliveries being

in accordance with those already permitted on the retail park and a further condition regarding details of plant/machinery.

Comments are awaited from West Midlands Fire Service, Coventry Tree Group, Western Power and the City Council’s tree and drainage officers. Any comments received will be reported as a late item.

General Public Comments Notification letters were sent to residential and commercial properties

adjacent to the site on the 16 May 2014. 2 site notices were posted near the application site on the 23 May 2014. A Press Notice was published in the Coventry Evening Telegraph on the 22

May 2014.

FUL/2014/1551 6

Ward Councillors Mutton and Lakha have written in support of the application. They consider that the proposed store would be beneficial for Binley & Willenhall ward residents as it would provide employment and enable a deprived community to access relatively low priced goods.

2 objections have been received raising the following issues: - The location of the proposed unit is unsustainable as no bus stop serves

the retail park and no provision has been made for cycle parking. - The applicant’s supporting Statements providing justification for retailing

in this location are not considered sound. - The objector has previously been awoken at night by noise from the staff

and deliveries at the retail park. The proposal will bring the retail park buildings closer to nearby residents and as a consequence the risk of noise nuisance will be increased. Activity late at night and in the early hours should be prohibited.

APPRAISAL The main issues in determining this application are: Retail planning policy/impact matters Local economic benefits Airport safeguarding Highways considerations Urban design Green space/ecology/trees Impact on the amenities of nearby residential occupiers Other considerations Retail planning policy/impact matters In terms of Government planning policy, paragraph 18 of the NPPF states that the Government is committed to securing economic growth to create jobs and prosperity. As such paragraph 19 continues by stressing that the planning system should do everything it can to support sustainable economic growth and therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. However, paragraph 24 states that local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses such as this that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.

FUL/2014/1551 7

Paragraph 26 requires impact assessments to be undertaken, where the proposed floorspace is 2500 square metres or more, if a main town centre use is proposed outside of a town centre. Paragraph 27 states that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact in respect of paragraph 26 then it should be refused. Paragraph 6 of that part of the NPPG related to ensuring the vitality of town centres states that it may not be possible to accommodate all forecast needs in a town centre. There may be physical or other constraints which make it inappropriate to do so. In those circumstances, planning authorities should plan positively to identify the most appropriate alternative strategy for meeting the need for these main town centre uses, having regard to the sequential and impact tests. This should ensure that any proposed main town centre uses which are not in an existing town centre are in the best locations to support the vitality and vibrancy of town centres, and that no likely significant adverse impacts on existing town centres arise, as set out in paragraph 26 of the NPPF. Paragraph 10 states that it is for the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the sequential test and re-iterates the NPPF in stating that an application should be refused if it fails to satisfy the test. CDP Policy S1 relating to shopping strategy states that the City Council will protect, maintain and enhance the hierarchy of Centres shown on the Proposals Map in order to provide access to a wide range of quality shops, services and other activities for all sections of the community in locations accessible by a choice of means of transport. New shopping developments proposed in this Plan are focused on the Central Shopping Area, the Major District Centres, District Centres and Local Centres. Further proposals for new shopping developments should be located within a defined Centre of appropriate scale and function. Elsewhere, the approach set out in Policy S 11 will be applied. Policy S11 states that proposals for Edge-of-Centre and Out-of-Centre retailing, other than local shops, will only be permitted if it is demonstrated firstly that there is a need for the proposal; more central sites are not suitable, viable and likely to become available within a reasonable time; and the proposed site is accessible by a choice of means of transport. In addition, proposals will be required to meet the following criteria: they should not have a harmful impact upon the vitality and viability of any defined Centre either alone or cumulatively; they should not have a significant harmful impact upon wider travel patterns and car use; they should be compatible with nearby uses; and they should be compatible with other Plan policies. Restrictions on the unit size and range of goods to be sold may be imposed. The application site occupies an out-of-centre location with the nearest Defined Centres being Willenhall Local Centre to the North West and Brandon Road District Centre off the A46 to the north. Brandon Road District Centre has recently become the focus for new retail development on the eastern side of the

FUL/2014/1551 8

City following construction of the Warwickshire Shopping Park. A substantial number of units on this shopping park remain vacant. A Planning & Retail Statement accompanies the planning application and this includes a sequential assessment of the proposals. In order to demonstrate flexibility as is required by the NPPF, this assessment looks at the availability of vacant units of 650 square metres gross and above in the City Centre and 4 Defined District Centres – Arena Park, Ball Hill, Cannon Park and Brandon Road. The assessment contends that there are no sequentially preferable sites in-centre or in an edge-of-centre location that are available, viable or suitable for the proposed development. This view is not shared by officers, who consider that there are sequentially preferable sites within the City Centre Central Shopping Area, at Brandon Road District Centre and also in several edge-of-centre and out-of-centre locations close to the City Centre Central Shopping Area. The applicant has been provided with detail on these sites and in response has provided further written representations on these in addition to their above-mentioned sequential assessment. However, notwithstanding the applicant’s further representations the view of officers remains unchanged. Moving onto the detail of sequentially preferable sites, officers have highlighted the availability of the former Allied Carpets store at 28-34 Corporation Street within the City Centre Central Shopping Area. This unit has a gross floor area of 930 square metres. This is well above the 650 square metre minimum threshold defined in the applicant’s sequential assessment but the applicant does not consider this unit to be suitable. However, their reasons for rejecting this unit are not considered to accord with the requirement of the NPPF for applicants to demonstrate flexibility with regard to issues such as format and scale. In this regard, in both their Planning & Retail Statement and subsequent response to officer views, concerns are expressed about the difficulties of trading over 2 floors where the retailer sells bulky goods. However, the majority of goods retailed by B & M are not bulky items and it is considered that those bulky goods that are retailed could therefore be accommodated at ground floor level to assist customers and staff. Concerns are also expressed regarding viability but no detailed financial evidence has been submitted to substantiate such concern. With regard to Warwickshire Shopping Park – which lies within the Brandon Road District Centre - recent planning permissions have been granted by the City Council (Refs: 73M/2013/2476 & S73/2013/0248) which have permitted the amalgamation of certain units, the introduction of mezzanine floors in others and relaxations in respect of the range of goods that can be retailed. In light of the above permissions it is considered that there would be scope to accommodate the applicant’s requirements on the Warwickshire Shopping Park site given the willingness of the developer and City Council to provide for greater flexibility on this site. For example, the latest documentation from the letting agents for Warwickshire Shopping Park shows that units 13 and 14 are available to let and if amalgamated these two units would provide a single unit

FUL/2014/1551 9

of 880 square metres which is well above the minimum 650 square metre floorspace threshold adopted by the applicant for their sequential assessment. Officers would support in principle an application to allow for such amalgamation. The applicant in their Planning & Retail Statement state that accommodating the proposed store in Units 13 and 14 would not be viable. However, their sequential assessment has looked at units of 650 square metres and above and no detailed financial evidence has been submitted to substantiate the concerns expressed regarding viability. They also refer to Unit 22 (814 square metres) currently being under offer and therefore unavailable. In their further comments on views expressed by officers, the applicant refers to Unit 12 (942 square metres) being under offer and therefore unavailable. Overall, they consider that recent applications approved by the City Council at Warwickshire Shopping Park have not resulted in the provision of any large units which are suitable, available or viable to B&M Bargains. However, for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph officers remain of the view that the applicant has not demonstrated that a B&M store could not be satisfactorily accommodated at Warwickshire Shopping Park. In terms of edge-of-centre sites, it is considered that the applicant has not demonstrated that the Bishopgate site (i.e. the former Royal Mail Sorting Office on Bishop Street adjacent to the Ring Road) and the former Coventry Evening Telegraph offices in Corporation Street would not be suitable and available sites for the proposed development. On the Bishopgate site, in their Planning & Retail Statement and subsequent response to officer views, the applicant contends that there is uncertainty regarding delivery of retail development on this site as the previous permission for retailing has now expired and the developer has stated that development on site would not commence without a pre-let in place. However, the principle of retail development has been established through the granting of outline planning permission and although this permission has now expired there is a reasonable likelihood that a revised planning application will be submitted as the landowner is currently marketing this site as a retail park with two of the proposed units being 1390 and 918 square metres in area which would be within the size range being considered by the applicant. For the former Coventry Evening Telegraph offices site, the applicant in their recent response to officer views, state that it was intended that the 1500 square metres of retail floorspace approved on this site would be occupied by a number of smaller units rather than a single occupier. They also refer to the retail floorspace having to be brought forward as part of a mixed-use scheme and to the fact that no detailed reserved matters have as yet been received despite planning permission having been granted in August 2011. However, this site has outline planning permission for 1500 square metres of retail floorspace (Permission Ref: OUT/2011/0254). The outline planning approval allows for a single retail unit of this size and although such a unit may

FUL/2014/1551 10

have to be brought forward as part of a mixed-use scheme this in itself does not necessarily render this location unsuitable for the proposal. Lastly, even if none of the above in-centre or edge-of-centre sites were considered suitable, an out-of-centre retail unit of around 900sqm is currently being marketed on the Central Six Retail Park to the immediate south of Coventry City Centre. The applicant contends that a further planning application would be needed to allow this unit to retail the range of goods that B&M sell, that the unit is too small and that this unit is not well connected to the City Centre Central Shopping Area. However, in terms of the NPPF and NPPG policy highlighted above, it is considered that this site occupies a more preferential location than the application site in terms of its relationship to an existing town centre. A further planning application would be needed to allow for the range of goods proposed to be sold, although this in itself would not render this site unsuitable if it could be demonstrated that there were no other sequentially preferable locations. Finally, the unit size is above the applicant’s 650 square metre threshold adopted for their sequential assessment. Overall it is submitted that the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposal complies with the sequential test and as such they have also not demonstrated that the application site is in the best location for the development to support the vitality and vibrancy of existing defined centres. For these reasons alone it is considered that planning permission should be refused in accordance with the NPPF and NPPG In order to minimise harm to the City Centre and other Defined Centres the applicant as stated above has suggested that a number of conditions restricting the proposed retail use would be acceptable if planning permission was granted. However, the size of unit proposed (1430 square metres) is substantial and is likely to serve a wider than local catchment and these suggested conditions would still potentially allow for a very substantial percentage of the proposed floorspace to be used to retail non-bulky goods items. A retail use such as this should normally be sited within a Defined Centre location in accordance with the City Council’s shopping strategy as set down in CDP Policies S1 and S11 in order to protect, maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of such Defined Centres. In this regard proposed Condition 1 allows for the unlimited sale of confectionery & soft drinks; Condition 2 includes some non-bulky items such as DIY/garden goods, soft furnishings, camping, boating and caravanning goods, motor vehicle and cycle goods, electrical goods and pet products; whilst Condition 3 allows a further 419sqm of floorspace to be used for the sale of additional non-bulky items. In conclusion, with regard to retail planning policy/impact matters, the applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with the sequential test and to demonstrate that the application site is the best location in terms of the development supporting the vitality and vibrancy of Defined Centres.

FUL/2014/1551 11

Furthermore, whilst an impact assessment is not required due to the 1430 square metres of floorspace proposed falling below the 2500 square metre NPPF threshold, it is nevertheless considered that a large store such as this with a wider than local catchment and selling largely non-bulky items should normally be sited within a Defined Centre location. Overall, it is therefore considered that the proposals would conflict with the City Council’s shopping strategy which seeks to support the vitality and viability of existing Defined Centres contrary to Policies S1 and S11 of the CDP as well as being contrary to Government policy in the NPPF and NPPG. Local economic benefits CDP Policy OS3 states that Local Area Regeneration initiatives will be promoted and encouraged throughout the City, but with particular emphasis on Priority Areas, in order to:

help improve local economic conditions, create jobs for local people, encourage the redevelopment of previously-developed sites, remove dereliction and contamination, respond to the cultural and recreational needs of the local community, improve and protect the natural and built environment, and reverse the adverse impact of traffic on the environment. Parts of Willenhall which lie in proximity to the application site are identified as a Priority Area for the purposes of Policy OS3. The proposed development has the potential to provide some benefit to Willenhall through the provision of an additional unit on the retail park which would improve the range of goods available at this site and also provide job opportunities for local residents. However, there is no guarantee that the jobs created would be taken by local residents. Furthermore existing local stores selling a range of convenience goods are available in the Willenhall area and the wider range of stores in Coventry City Centre and within the Brandon Road District Centre are readily accessible by bus. Overall, it is not considered that the local economic benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm that would arise in respect of the City Council’s shopping strategy, as detailed above, which seeks to promote the vitality and vibrancy of existing Defined Centres in the City Airport Safeguarding The application site lies in close proximity to Coventry Airport and as stated above the airport have objected to the application as the proposed landscaping raises aviation safety concerns. The airport also recommend, due to the proximity of the proposed building to the airport’s Take-off Climb Surface, that some contingency is considered that will take account of any potential errors

FUL/2014/1551 12

during construction. Detailed comments are also provided regarding the need to ensure that construction activities and external lighting do not compromise aviation safety. The applicant’s response to the above matters is awaited and an update will be provided at Committee on landscaping issues. The matter of contingencies related to construction is a detailed matter beyond the scope of this application whilst concerns regarding construction activities and external lighting could be addressed by means of conditions if planning permission was granted. Highways Considerations In assessing highways matters consideration needs to be given to highway/junction capacity issues, provision for cyclists, pedestrians and buses, car parking and Green Travel measures. Regarding matters of highway/junction capacity, CDP Policy AM22 states that new developments will be required to have safe and appropriate access to the highway system, together with satisfactory on-site arrangements for vehicle manoeuvring, by means which avoid danger or inconvenience to pedestrians, cyclists or drivers. A Transport Statement has been submitted with the application. This predicts that there would only be around 18 vehicle arrivals/departures per hour in peak hours and that overall the impact of the proposal on the local and strategic highway network would be minimal. The City Council as local highway authority and the Highways Agency as strategic highway authority for the A46 raise no objections on highway/junction capacity grounds. Overall therefore, the proposals are considered to be acceptable in terms of highway/junction capacity matters. CDP Policy AM8 states that a network of convenient pedestrian routes made safer by design will be promoted and encouraged. Policy AM9 further states that such routes must be incorporated in the design of new developments and highway schemes. CDP Policy AM12 states that convenient cycle routes, made safer by design, must generally be incorporated in the design of new developments and highway schemes. Pedestrian access to the retail park is provided from London Road. A footpath runs from London Road along the north side of the site access road with crossing points provided either side of the internal site roundabout which then connect with the pedestrian walkways to the front of the retail units. As stated above, construction of the proposed unit would result in the site access road & roundabout having to be redesigned and relocated 5 metres to

FUL/2014/1551 13

the west of their present position onto areas of site curtilage currently occupied by grass/shrub planting and car parking. Highways have advised that these proposed changes are acceptable. With regard to provision for cyclists, the applicant has agreed to provide cycle parking for 10 staff cycles in the service yard area to the rear and 4 spaces for customers adjacent to the unit. This level of provision accords with the ‘Delivering a More Sustainable City’ SPD. Overall it is considered that the provision made for pedestrians and cyclists is acceptable. Coventry Development Plan (CDP) Policy AM3 states that major new developments and highway schemes must facilitate the provision of safe, convenient and efficient bus services. To achieve this, developers will be expected to include or fund physical works and, in most cases, contribute to enhanced bus services. The nearest bus stops accessible on foot to/from the site are on London Road and around 200m from the retail park. These are served by bus services which provide access every 30 minutes to Willenhall, Coventry City Centre, Walsgrave Hospital and Wood End. Overall, although the retail park itself is not directly served by bus it is considered that satisfactory access to bus services is provided for. Turning to the matter of car parking, the proposals are considered acceptable in terms of car parking numbers. The retail park is currently well served with over 500 parking spaces and it is not considered that the loss of 52 spaces to accommodate the proposal would be problematical. The proposals do however, as they currently stand, result in a reduction in the number of disabled car parking spaces from 26 to 24 which is not considered acceptable and discussions are on-going with the applicant regarding this. An update will be provided at Committee. In terms of green travel measures, a green travel plan is not considered necessary in this instance as the proposed floorspace is below the 1500 square metre threshold for non-food retail units set down in the City Council’s Delivering a More Sustainable City SPD. Overall therefore the proposals are considered acceptable with regard to highways considerations subject to the outstanding matter regarding disabled parking highlighted above being resolved. Urban Design CDP Policy BE2 seeks to secure a high quality of urban design in new developments.

FUL/2014/1551 14

The proposed new retail unit would relate well in terms of its siting and entrance point to the existing units on the retail park and the proposed facing materials and elevation treatments would also match with those to the existing units. A key difference between the proposed unit and existing units is that the proposed unit would have a flat roof as opposed to the existing units which have shallow pitched roofs. However, it is not considered that such variation would be significantly harmful in visual amenity terms because in short and long range views of the proposed unit against its neighbouring unit this difference would either not be noticeable at all or only marginally noticeable given the height of the units, the shallowness of the roof pitch on the existing units and the screening of the retail park from the surrounding area by dense vegetation. In terms of CDP Policy BE21 it is also considered that the proposals would be acceptable in terms of safety and security. The service yard to the rear of the premises would be secured by palisade fencing which matches with the fencing to the existing retail park service yard. Furthermore, the applicant will provide external lighting and CCTV for the proposed unit with the details of this provision to be secured by condition if planning permission was granted. Due to space constraints the applicant has decided not to provide defensive planting adjacent to the gable wall of the retail unit as requested by West Midlands Police. Whilst this would have been desirable, it is not considered essential and indeed the gable wall of the existing Currys/PC World unit to which the new unit would be attached does not have such planting. Other comments supplied by West Midlands Police relate to more detailed building specification matters beyond the scope of this planning application but these have been passed onto the applicant for their consideration. In terms of CDP Policy OS9 disabled access is provided into and throughout the new building and within the proposed adjacent public realm areas around the building. Overall the proposals are considered acceptable in urban design terms subject to conditions. Green space/ecology/trees In respect of green space and trees Policies GE1 and GE14 of the CDP seek to enhance the provision and quality of Green Space whilst improving its accessibility and protecting valuable landscape features. As stated above, the proposed development would result in the loss of 20 trees. However, none of the trees earmarked for removal are the subject of Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) and none are considered to be of significant amenity value. Nevertheless, 16 new replacement trees and new areas of shrub planting are proposed by way of compensation including new tree/shrub planting to screen the rear service yard area. The City Council’s ecologist raises no objection to the proposals subject to a tree protection condition.

FUL/2014/1551 15

As stated above, Coventry Airport have raised aviation safety concerns about the proposed landscaping scheme. These are currently being discussed with the applicant and an update will be provided at Committee. Overall the proposals are considered acceptable in terms of their impact on green space, ecology and trees subject to conditions and resolution of the Coventry Airport concerns. Impact on the amenities of nearby residential occupiers The nearest dwellings to the proposed retail unit are on Montgomery Close to the west of the application site. These are at least 35 metres away from the proposed unit. Dwellings to the north of the retail park would be at least 50 metres distant. Given these distances, the height of the proposed unit and the existence of substantial soft landscape screening to the site, particularly adjacent to Montgomery Close, it is not considered that significant harm would arise to neighbouring occupiers in terms of loss of daylight/sunlight and visual intrusion. With regard to the matter of noise nuisance to neighbouring occupiers from activities associated with the proposed unit, Environmental Protection raise no objections subject to conditions regarding hours of deliveries being in accordance with those already permitted on the retail park (i.e. 0700-2000 hours on any day) and a further condition regarding details of plant/machinery. The appropriate management of construction works to minimise nuisance to neighbouring occupiers is also a matter that would be addressed by condition, with the Highways Agency directing that such a condition should be attached if planning permission were to be granted. The applicant has confirmed that these conditions would be acceptable to them. Overall therefore the proposals are considered acceptable in terms of their impact on the amenity of nearby residents. Other considerations In terms of flood risk and drainage the site is located in an area, which has a very low risk of flooding and Severn Trent raise no objections subject to a drainage details condition. Bearing in mind the previous fire on the retail park, the applicant has had regard to fire safety matters. In this respect, fire detection and prevention measures would be installed within the unit in accordance with the current Building Regulations and additional measures will also be installed by the tenant as part of their fit-out programme. As stated above, comments are awaited from West Midlands Fire Service and an update will be provided at Committee.

FUL/2014/1551 16

CONCLUSION In terms of retail planning policy/impact matters it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with the sequential test and to demonstrate that the application site is the best location in terms of the development supporting the vitality and vibrancy of Defined Centres and it is considered that the proposals would conflict with the City Council’s shopping strategy which seeks to support the vitality and viability of existing Defined Centres contrary to Policies S1 and S11 of the CDP as well as being contrary to Government policy in the NPPF and NPPG. Overall, it is not considered that the local economic benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm that would arise in respect of the City Council’s shopping strategy. The proposal is acceptable on airport safeguarding grounds subject to conditions and resolution of concerns expressed by Coventry Airport regarding the detail of the proposed landscaping scheme. In respect of highways considerations the proposal is also considered acceptable subject to conditions and resolution of the outstanding matter concerning disabled car parking. The proposal is acceptable on urban design grounds subject to conditions and also acceptable in respect of green space, ecology and tree matters subject to resolution of Coventry Airport’s landscaping concerns. The proposals are considered acceptable in terms of their impact on the amenity of nearby residents subject to conditions. Overall it is considered that the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this instance because in respect of retail planning policy/impact matters the proposals do not accord with the development plan and the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF. It is therefore recommended that planning permission is refused.

1

Reason for Refusal: 1. The application proposal is for a main town centre use and the

application site is in an out of centre location. In the opinion of the local planning authority it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated, in terms of supporting the vitality and vibrancy of Defined Centres, that there are no sequentially preferable sites currently available or expected to become available within a reasonable timeframe. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the City Council's shopping strategy as set out in Policies S1 and S11 of the Coventry Development Plan 2001 and Government Guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and the National Planning Practice Guidance 2014.

ALL BACKGROUND PAPERS OPEN TO PUBLIC INSPECTION at City Services & Development Directorate, Civic Centre 4, Much Park Street and www.coventry.gov.uk CASE OFFICER: Geoff Horsman

A 46 COVENTRY EASTERN BYPASS EASTBOUND

A 46 COVENTRY EASTERN BYPASS WESTBOUND

LON

DO

N R

OA

D

MONTGOMERY CLOSE

Pallasade Fence

Pallasade F

ence

Pallasade Fence

SEVERN DRIVE

SERVICE YARD

CUSTOMER CAR PARK

Trolle

y Ba

y

TROLLEY BAY

RWP RWP RWP RWP RWP RWP

RWP

RWP

RWP


RW

PR

WP

RWP RWPRWP

RWP

RWP RWP RWP RWP RWP

RWP

RWP

RWP

RWP

RWP RWP

RW

P

RW

P

UNIT 1/2

UNIT 3

UNIT 5

UNIT 6

UNIT 4

Exten

t of M

ezza

nin

e

Sprinkler Tank

UNIT 2AUNIT 3

ExistingLandlordselectrical

supply pillar

Exis

ting

Ca

r Pa

rk

1360

31125 Rev Description Date Initial Checked

A Service yard fence added. 25/06/2014 DWS

For guidance only. Do not scale off this drawing

1:20 -

3m300mm

2m200mm

1m100mm0

0

14001200800mm600mm400mm200mm0

0 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m 6m 7m

1000

1:100-

1:50 -1:5 -

c 2012 RPS Group

rpsgroup.comExisting Site Plan

Highfield House, 5 RidgewayQuinton Business Park, Birmingham B32 1AF

T: +44(0)121 213 5500 E: [email protected] F: +44(0)121 213 5502

Client

Title

Status

Date CreatedScale @ A2

PM/Checked byDrawn By

Drawing Number Rev

Project

Job Ref

Notes1. This drawing has been prepared in accordance with the scope of RPS’s

appointment with its client and is subject to the terms and conditions of thatappointment. RPS accepts no liability for any use of this document other thanby its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided.

2. If received electronically it is the recipients responsibility to print to correctscale. Only written dimensions should be used.

London Metric Property Plc

Airport Retail Park, CoventryUnit 1A

Existing Site Plan

Planning

AAA5108

ACG

1:1250 24/06/14

AAA5108-P5-01 A

A 46 COVENTRY EASTERN BYPASS EASTBOUND

A 46 COVENTRY EASTERN BYPASS WESTBOUND

LON

DO

N R

OA

D

MONTGOMERY CLOSE

Existing Pallasade Fence

New Pallasade Fence

SEVERN DRIVE

SERVICE YARD

CUSTOMER CAR PARK

Trolle

y Ba

y

TROLLEY BAY

Trolle

y Ba

y


RWP

RWP

RWP


RW

PR

WP

RWP RWPRWP

RWP

RWP RWP RWP RWP RWP

RWP

RWP

RWP

RWP

RWP RWP

RW

P

RW

P

UNIT 1/2 UNIT 3

UNIT 5

UNIT 6

UNIT 4

Exten

t of M

ezza

nin

e

Sprinkler Tank

UNIT 2APROPOSEDUNIT 1A

1360

Rev Description Date Initial Checked

A Service yard fence & cycle shelter added. 25/06/2014 DWS


1:20 -

3m300mm

2m200mm

1m100mm0

0

14001200800mm600mm400mm200mm0

0 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m 6m 7m

1000

1:100-

1:50 -1:5 -

c 2012 RPS Group

rpsgroup.comProposed Site Plan

Highfield House, 5 RidgewayQuinton Business Park, Birmingham B32 1AF


Client

Title

Status


PM/Checked byDrawn By

Drawing Number Rev

Project

Job Ref

Notes1. This drawing has been prepared in accordance with the scope of RPS’s

appointment with its client and is subject to the terms and conditions of thatappointment. RPS accepts no liability for any use of this document other thanby its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided.

2. If received electronically it is the recipients responsibility to print to correctscale. Only written dimensions should be used.


Airport Retail Park, CoventryUnit 1A

Proposed Site Plan

Planning

AAA5108

ACG

1:1250 25/06/14

AAA5108-P5-02 A

RWP

RWP

1nr Ascls hp

1nr Ascls hp

3nr Aln gl

2nr Crpns bt

1nr Cryls cl1nr Cryls cl

1nr Crpns bt

1nr Prns srrl

1nr Prns srrl

1nr Prns srrl

2nr Aml lm

2nr Il aq JCVT

1nr Mls ts

1nr Mls ts

1nr Mls ts

Screening Shrub Mix

8nr Aml lm

3nr Bpl fr

14nr Brb dr

7nr Ctnst cns H

7nr Ctnst lc

5nr Osmnt br

5nr Pyrc ccc RC

4nr Pyrc OC

4nr Sk jp V

6nr Vb tn G

7nr Vb x br AR

Screening Shrub Mix

64nr Aml lm

21nr Bpl fr

115nr Brb dr

62nr Ctnst cns H

62nr Ctnst lc

43nr Osmnt br

43nr Pyrc ccc RC

34nr Pyrc OC

31nr Sk jp V

53nr Vb tn G

61nr Vb x br AR

Proposed grass.

Existing vegetation to be removed.

(Approx 2x mature trees and 4x

groups of whip sized trees.)

Existing vegetation to be retained

and protected in accordance with

BS 5837:2012.

Proposed shrub mix planting.

Proposed Tarmac to match existing.

Kerb edging to match existing (or similar approved)

to be laid to manufacturer's specification.

Note: Radii and droppers also required

Existing Tarmac to be removed.

LANDSCAPE KEY

Proposed Buff paving to match existing

(or similar approved).

Laid to manufacturer's specifications.

Kerb edging to match existing (or similar

approved) to be laid to manufacturer's

specifications.


Existing Tarmac to be retained.

Proposed Specimen trees.

Proposed Muilt-stem trees.

Proposed Specimen shrubs.

Tree Planting

Qty

Abb. Text

Species

Form

Age

Girth

Height

Clear Stem Root

3

Aln gl Alnus glutinosa

Standard 3x 18-20cm 425-600cm Min 200cm RB

2

Ascls hp Aesculus hippocastanum Standard (Extra heavy)

3x 18-20cm 450-500cm Min 200cm RB

3

Crpns bt Carpinus betulus Standard (Extra heavy)

3x 18-20cm 450-500cm Min 200cm RB

2

Cryls cl Corylus colurna Standard (Extra heavy)

3x 18-20cm 450-500cm Min 200cm RB

3 Mls ts Malus trilobata

Standard (Extra heavy)

4x 16-18cm min 400cm Min 200cm RB

3 Prns srrl Prunus serrula Multi-stem 3x 200-250cm RB

16

Screening Shrub Mix

Qty

Abb. Text

Species

Container Habit

Height

Root Mix % Centres

72 Aml lm Amelanchier lamarckii 2L Branched 40-50cm C 15.00 0.600

24

Bpl fr Bupleurum fruticosum

2L

Bushy

30-40cm C 5.00 0.600

129 Brb dr Berberis darwinii 3L

Bushy

30-40cm C 15.00 0.450

69 Ctnst cns H

Cotoneaster conspicuus 'Highlight'

3L Branched 30-40cm C 10.00 0.500

69 Ctnst lc Cotoneaster lacteus 2L Branched 30-40cm C 10.00 0.500

48 Osmnt br Osmanthus burkwoodii 3L

Bushy

30-40cm C 10.00 0.600

48

Pyrc ccc RC Pyracantha coccinea 'Red Cushion'

3L

Bushy 30-40cm (D)

C 7.00 0.500

38

Pyrc OC Pyracantha 'Orange Charmer'

3L Leader/Laterals 40-60cm C 8.00 0.600

35

Sk jp V Skimmia japonica 'Veitchii'

3L

Bushy

30-40cm C 5.00 0.500

59 Vb tn G Viburnum tinus 'Gwenllian'

Bushy

30-40cm C 7.00 0.450

68 Vb x br AR Viburnum x burkwoodii 'Anne Russell' 3L

Bushy

30-40cm C 8.00 0.450

659

Specimen Shrub Planting

Qty

Abb. Text

Species

Container Habit

Height

Root

2 Aml lm Amelanchier lamarckii 10L Branched 80-100cm C

2

Il aq JCVT Ilex aquifolium 'J C Van Tol'

10L Leader/Laterals 60-80cm C

4

Typical Tarmac and Paving with Edging Detail

SCALE 1:20

01

AAA5108_LS-01

Concrete haunching and footing to Engineer's specification

Concrete kerb edging to match existing.


Buff Paving to match existing

Sub base to Engineer's specification

Sub base infill to paving manufacturer's specification

Black macadam to engineer's specification

Sub base to Engineer's specification

Sub base infill to paving manufacturer's specification

Compacted Sub Soil


Rev DescriptionDate

Initial Checked

A Updated to suit Client comments. Planting

Schedule updated.

26:06:14LB DMB

Highfield House, 5 Ridgeway

Quinton Business Park, Birmingham B32 1AF


Client

Title

Status


PM/Checked by

Drawn By

Drawing NumberRev

Project

c 2012 RPS Group

Notes

1. This drawing has been prepared in accordance with the scope of RPS’s

appointment with its client and is subject to the terms and conditions of that

appointment. RPS accepts no liability for any use of this document other than

by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided.

2. If received electronically it is the recipients responsibility to print to correct scale.

Only written dimensions should be used.

Job Ref

rpsgroup.com

London Metric Property Plc.

Coventry Airport

Retail Park

Detailed Landscape Proposals

Sheet 1 of 1

Planning

DMB

AAA5108

LB

1:200

May 2014

AAA5108-P5-LS-01 A

PLANTING SPECIFICATION

SAFETY PRECAUTIONS

The landscape sub-contractor is to take all safety precautions to prevent any injury to

any persons. The landscape sub-contractor shall comply with the requirements of

the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and current Construction, Design and

Management Regulations.

PLANTING

All plants and planting to comply with the requirements of all current / relevant British

Standard specifications including BS 3936: Part 1 (1992), Part 2 (1990) and Part 4

(1984) and BS 4043 (1989) where applicable, BS 4428 (1989) and the BALI / LI /

Nursery Trade Tender Document (5th Edition 1986). All plants to be supplied in

accordance with the plant schedule. Any plant material planted outside the

recognised planting season (Nov-Feb), to be containerised stock and supplied at the

sizes specified.

TREE PLANTING

A suitable method of foundation allowing for existing ground conditions is to be

provided to accommodate the proposed tree planting. All trees are to be planted as

shown ensuring a minimum of 5 metres from buildings and 3 metres from drainage

and services. Where necessary, root barriers to be installed (supplier Greenleaf or

similar approval), as recommended by structural engineer. Allow for the use of

container grown stock during the period 1 April to 31 October, and field grown stock

from 1 November to 31 March.

TOPSOIL REQUIREMENTS

To BS 3882 (2007) as qualified by full contract specification. All areas shall be

cultivated to a minimum depth of 150mm. Full weed, rubbish and stones over 20mm

gauge shall be removed. Earth to be rolled as required and raked in two directions.

Applied to all newly planted areas (except wildflower / meadow planting), to

manufacturer's recommendations where appropriate.

Shrub / structure planting beds - 450mm depth

Heavy standard tree pits - 1500mm dia. x 900mm depth

Grass areas (incl. rear gardens) - 150mm depth

Where necessary increase tree pit dimensions to ensure that tree pits are at least

75mm deeper and 150mm wider than rootball. Break up bottom of pits to a depth of

150mm. Compacted glazed sides of pits should be roughened.

Full analysis of existing and imported topsoil required prior to use.

TOPSOIL IMPROVEMENTS

Applied to all newly planted areas, to manufacturers' recommendations where

appropriate:

1) Incorporate 75mm depth of soil conditioner into topsoil during cultivation;

2) Incorporate Alginure (Seanure Soilbuilder) Soil Improver approx. 1.5KG/m3 to

tree pit backfill and 75g/m2 to shrub beds;

3) Incorporate Enmag (6:20:10) granular fertilizer approx 400g/m3 to tree pit backfill

and 100g/m2 to structural/ornamental beds;

4) Watering - supply minimum 54 litres/tree and 4.5 litres/shrub at planting;

5) Mulch - lightly fork over planted areas before applying a 75mm depth 50-100mm

grade bark mulch. Ornamental Bark to consist of predominantly matured British

Pine Bark with an even nominal particle size distribution of 5-35mm with 0% dust

& fines & less than 5% wood content. The product shall be pest, disease & weed

free & not have been treated with Methyl Bromide or any additives. The product

shall have been tested in accordance with the requirements of BS 4790:1987, for

fire resistance. NB - Watering to be carried out prior to application of bark mulch.

PLANT MATERIAL TREATMENT

NB All to be British grown stock and fully hardened off.

Root Dip - Proprietary Root Dip applied to all bare rooted stock (1) at time of lifting at

nursery and (2) prior to planting.

Anti-Desiccant - Proprietary anti-desiccant to be applied to foliage of all containerised

/ rootballed material in leaf, specimen conifers and evergreens etc.

(1) prior to transportation and (2) during any delay in planting.

Pruning - Allow for pruning of all deciduous trees and shrubs by 1/3rd following

planting at Landscape Architects direction or as indicated in the planting

schedule.

Tree Stakes & Ties - Stakes to be pressure treated, round, smooth and peeled Larch

or Chestnut, not less than 100mm in diameter. Advanced nursery stock -

double staked with cross bar.

TREE STAKES, TIES & GUARDS

Trees planted within grassed areas to be provided with appropriate conical strimmer

guards. Stakes to be pressure impregnated softwood, round, peeled, straight, free

of projections and pointed at one end. Minimum length and thickness to be

determined as follows:

Tree type Min Dia. Overall Height Height exposed above ground

Ex / Hvy Std 100mm 1.8m 0.6m

Tree type No. stakes No. ties

Ex / Hvy Std 2 1

MAINTENANCE

Regular visits (minimum 20 No.) required during the defects liability period to

maintain all planted areas in a weed and litter free condition using a combination of

chemical spray and hand weeding to be agreed with the Landscape Architect.

Maintenance to include watering, pruning, pest and disease control and re-mulching

as required. Grass areas to be mowed at 2 week intervals during the growing

season.

Structure planting areas shall be maintained as non competitive weed free

environment by repeated applications of a glyphosate based herbicide. Persistent

weeds and unwanted scrub shall be spot treated as necessary with an alternative

herbicide to be agreed with the Landscape Architect.

Watering shall be carried out as necessary to maintain healthy growth or as required

by the Landscape Architect and in any case where possible should adhere to Annex

G of BS 5545:2014

NB: Final visit to be immediately prior to handing over and to include a fertilizer

treatment of Enmag (6:20:10) at 100g/m2 and 25mm depth bark mulch top up to all

planted areas.

TURFED AREAS

Turf to BS 3969 from an approved source. When topsoil is reasonably dry and

workable, grade to smooth, flowing contours removing all minor hollows and ridges.

Cultivate soil to full depth and break up any compacted topsoil. Apply approved

herbicide to control perennial weeds and allow period of time to elapse as

recommended by manufacturer before final cultivation. Apply proprietary fertiliser.

Reduce top 25mm topsoil to a fine tilth by further cultivation. Remove stones

exceeding 50mm in any dimension. Lay turf with broken joints, well butted up,

working from planks laid on previously laid turves, during appropriate season and

weather conditions. Adjust levels by raking out or filling with fine soil under turves.

Consolidate by lightly and evenly firming with wooden beaters as laying proceeds.

Do not use rollers. Dress turf with fine topsoil and brush in to fill joints. Thoroughly

water completed turf within 24 hours of laying.

TURFED AREAS: ESTABLISHMENT CUT

Water all grass areas to maintain healthy growth. When grass is 50mm high remove

debris, litter and any stones later in dry conditions cut grass to between 25-30mm.

Remove and dispose of all arisings.

GRASS SEEDED AREAS

Grass seeding generally to BS 4428. When topsoil is reasonably dry and workable

grade to smooth flowing contours removing all hollows and ridges. Cultivate soil to

full depth and break up any compacted topsoil. Apply approved herbicide to control

perennial weeds and allow period of time to elapse as recommended by

manufacturer before final cultivation. Apply proprietary pre-seeding fertilizer.

Reduce top 25mm of topsoil to a fine tilth by further cultivation. Remove stones

exceeding 50mm in any dimension. Sow approved grass seed mixture in

accordance with suppliers recommendations during appropriate season and weather

conditions, e.g. British Seed House Mix A2 (Quality Lawn) 50gms/m2. Lightly harrow

or rake then roll and cross-roll with lightweight roller.

GRASS SEEDED AREAS: ESTABLISHMENT CUT

When grass is between 40-75mm high remove stones and debris exceeding 50mm

in any dimension and roll with a lightweight roller. About 48 hours later cut grass to

approximately 35mm high. Remove and dispose of all arisings.

PROTECTIVE FENCING

The contractor shall maintain fencing until all site works are completed. The

contractor will then remove the fencing and reinstate the ground. The fencing will

remain the property of the contractor.

Within the area so fenced, the existing ground level shall be neither raised nor

lowered, all excavations shall then be carried out by hand.

The Local Planning Authority shall be advised in writing when the protective fencing

has been erected so that it can be checked on site before development commences,

and shall thereafter be maintained during the period of construction.

All subject to Local Authority approval.

BUFFER PLANTING: FEATHERED TREES AND WHIPS

Notch planting will not be permitted. All feathered trees and whips will be planted in

prepared pits 600mm diameter x 600mm deep for feathered trees and 300mm

diameter x 300mm deep for whips.

Each plant shall be placed upright in the centre of the pit with the roots spread

evenly outwards and downwards without restriction, and backfilled with topsoil (to BS

3882: 2007), incorporating Fisons Tree Planting Compost at a rate of 10 litres/whip

pit and 40 litres/feathered tree pit, well mixed with topsoil backfill in consolidated

layers, shaking the trees to remove voids.

Incorporate Alginure 'Seanure Soilbuilder' Soil Improver at a rate of 100 gms/whip pit

and 325 gms/feathered tree pit, well mixed with backfill.

Incorporate Fisons Ficote 70 (14:14:14) Controlled Release Fertilizer at a rate of 60

gms/whip pit and 510 gms/feathered tree pit, well mixed with backfill.

Supply water at a minimum 4.5 litres/whip and 18 litres/feathered tree prior to bark

mulching.

Feathered trees shall be staked using 1.0m long Larch or Chestnut stakes, round,

smooth, and peeled with 75mm diameter at the point and not less than 50mm at the

butt end, driven at least 600mm into the ground. Trees will be secured to the stake

using a single 'Tom Tie' or similar approved securely nailed at a point 50mm from the

top of the stake to ensure no rubbing or excessive movement.

The plant shall be well firmed, with the soil level 10mm above nursery level to allow

for settlement. Clear away surplus soil and after watering apply a minimum 75mm

deep x 300mm diameter collar of 50-75mm grade coarse bark mulch. All tree

species to be fitted with proprietry rabbit guards.

EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS

Where existing trees & shrubs are to be retained they should be subject to a full

arboricultural inspection for safety.

Any surgery required shall be in accordance with BS 3998 (2010) 'Tree Work -

Recommendations', shall comply with any existing T.P.O requirements and shall

require the prior approval of the Landscape Architect.

Avoid damage to branches, trunks and roots of trees. All existing trees & hedges to

be retained are subject to BS 5837 (2012) 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and

construction - Recommendations', and should be fully fenced off, prior to the

commencement of any works, in accordance with Figure 2 (p20) at the full extent of

the root protection area, as determined by section 4.6 (p10-11) and Annex D (p40).

No storage of materials, disposal of rubbish, site fires, spillage of oil and chemicals,

ground compaction, excavation or changes in level shall be carried out within

existing tree / hedge canopies.

PLANTING SCHEDULE

Buff paving to match existing

Tarmac and parking areas to match existing

Shrub Mix Planting.

RWP

RWP RWP

RWP

Trolley Bay

New

P

allasade F

ence

Proposed Unit 1A

New Access Road

Amended Island Location

Existing Unit 1/2Service Yard

Extg Trees to beRemoved showndashed

Proposed AntiRam-Raid Bollards

Entrance/ Exit

Entrance/ Exit

Glaz

ed S

hopfr

ont

Glaz

ed S

hopfr

ont





Client

Title

Status


PM/Checked by

Drawn By

Drawing NumberRev

Project

c 2012 RPS Group

Notes







Job Ref

rpsgroup.com


Airport Retail Park, Coventry

Unit 1A

Proposed Ground Floor Plan

Planning

AAA5108

ACG

1:100

25/06/14

AAA5108-P5-04 A


A Service yard fence & cycle shelter added.

25/06/2014

DWS

Proposed Ground Floor Plan

Sprinkler tank

6850

7344

Tenant SignageZone

6850

7344

6850

7344

Tenant SignageZone

6850

7344





Client

Title

Status


PM/Checked by

Drawn By

Drawing NumberRev

Project

c 2012 RPS Group

Notes







Job Ref

rpsgroup.com



Unit 1A

Proposed Elevations

Planning

AAA5108

ACG

1:100

24/04/14

AAA5108-P5-08 A


A Height of roof and tenant signage shown reduced.

24.06.14DH

Proposed Elevations

UNITS 1A,1/2 REAR ELEVATIONSCALE 1:100

UNIT 1/2

UNIT 1/2

UNITS 1A,1/2,3 REAR ELEVATIONSCALE 1:250

UNITS 1A,1/2,2A,3 FRONT ELEVATIONSCALE 1:100

UNIT 1/2

UNIT 3

UNIT 3UNIT 1/2 UNIT 6(GABLE ELEVATION)

UNIT 1A

UNIT 1A

UNIT 1A

UNIT 2A

UNIT 1AUNIT 2A

UNITS 1A,1/2,2A,3 FRONT ELEVATIONSCALE 1:250

Shop Front Windows & DoorsProposed shop front glazing to be 'Kawneer' aluminium curtain wallingsystem (or equal approved) polyester powder coated with Pilkington clearlaminated float glass colour: TBC. Entrance doors into the proposed RetailUnits are to be sliding automatic (bi-parting) operation.

1

4

3

Escape Doors / Roller shutterProposed Security rated Fire Exit / delivery access doors,colour: TBC

Security Bollards to service yard areasProposed security bollards to protect the doors in the service yardcolour: Dark Grey (RAL 7016).

2

BollardsAnti-ram bollards to protect the glazed shopfronts,colour: RAL 7036 (mid-grey)

1

5

5

Proposed brickworkNew brickwork to match existing. Brick feature banding to match existing.

6

Proposed Soffit / fasciaNew soffit and fascia to match existing.

7

Proposed RoofNew roof to extension. Colour: to match existing.

1 11

2222 55

66 7 7

3

3

222

Vertical CladdingProposed vertical cladding to match existing profile and colour.8

8

8 8 44

4

Note:Tenant Signage Zones areshown indicatively and are subjectto separate application foradvertising consent

Re-routedaccess road



6850

7344

6850

6850

6850

6850

7344

6850

6850

6850





Client

Title

Status


PM/Checked by

Drawn By

Drawing NumberRev

Project

c 2012 RPS Group

Notes







Job Ref

rpsgroup.com



Unit 1A

Proposed Elevations Sheet 2

Planning

AAA5108

ACG

1:100

24/04/14

AAA5108-P5-09 A


A Height of roof and tenant signage shown reduced.

24.06.14DH

Proposed Elevations Sheet 2

UNITS 1A,1/2,3 REAR ELEVATIONSCALE 1:100

UNIT 3

UNIT 1A

UNIT 1A,2A,3,4,5,6 REAR (SIDE) ELEVATIONSCALE 1:250

UNITS 1A GABLE ELEVATIONSCALE 1:100

UNIT 1A

UNITS 1A GABLE ELEVATIONSCALE 1:250

UNIT 1A

UNIT 3

UNIT 4 UNIT 5 UNIT 6

UNIT 2A

UNIT 3UNIT 4UNIT 5

UNIT 2A UNIT 1AREAR SIDE ELEVATION Shop Front Windows & Doors

Proposed shop front glazing to be 'Kawneer' aluminium curtain wallingsystem (or equal approved) polyester powder coated with Pilkington clearlaminated float glass colour: TBC. Entrance doors into the proposed RetailUnits are to be sliding automatic (bi-parting) operation.

1

4

3

Escape Doors / Roller shutterProposed Security rated Fire Exit / delivery access doors,colour: TBC

Security Bollards to service yard areasProposed security bollards to protect the doors in the service yardcolour: Dark Grey (RAL 7016).

2

BollardsAnti-ram bollards to protect the glazed shopfronts,colour: RAL 7036 (mid-grey)

5

Proposed brickworkNew brickwork to match existing. Brick feature banding to match existing.

6

Proposed Soffit / fasciaNew soffit and fascia to match existing.

7

Proposed RoofNew roof to extension. Colour: to match existing.

Vertical CladdingProposed vertical cladding to match existing profile and colour.8

3

4

4

222 2

3

4444

5

6 2

Note:Tenant Signage Zones areshown indicatively and are subjectto separate application foradvertising consent

8

ABC PUBLIC COMMITTEE REPORT -...

Documents

Transcript of ABC PUBLIC COMMITTEE REPORT -...