Agenda item

Erection of a new Aldi foodstore (Use Class A1), car park, access, servicing and landscaping

 

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Elin Hywel

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To approve the application subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         Timescales

2.         In accordance with the approved plans.

3.         Materials in accordance with the plans unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority.

4.         Retail conditions to restrict floor space area, no subdivision into smaller units.

5.         Shop opening times.

6.         Control of delivery times.

7.         Highways conditions in terms of completing the access, lane work, parking spaces and preventing surface water.

8.         Public protection conditions in terms of ventilation system/heat recovery unit, noise levels from mechanical equipment, barrier on the goods delivery bay.

9.         Building Control Plan

10.       Adhere to the mitigation measures in the Air Quality Assessment.

11.       Undertake the work in accordance with the landscaping plan and Soft Landscaping Maintenance and Management Plan, a need to replant within a period of five years.

12.       Welsh language improvement/mitigation measures/bilingual signage.

13.       In accordance with the lighting plan.

14.       In accordance with the Ecological Survey Report.

15.       In accordance with the Environmental Management Plan.

 

Notes:

1.         Large-scale development

2.         SUDS

3.         Highways - powers under Section 171/184 of the Highways Act 1980

4.         Observations from Welsh Water

5.         Observations from Public Protection

6.         Observations from NRW

 

Construction of a new Aldi food store (A1 use class), car park, access, 

servicing and landscaping

 

Some of the Members had visited the site on 10-11-23.

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form which contained further information regarding a Sustainable Drainage System consent, a copy of a letter from JLL offering observations on the wording of parts of the report, the Policy Unit's response to said letter, and an explanatory note regarding the access. 

 

a)      The Development Control Team Leader highlighted that this was a full application to construct a new food store off the A499 Caernarfon Road, which is one of the main roads into and out of Pwllheli.  The proposal also included:

·         The creation of a new access onto Caernarfon Road together with 114 parking spaces, to include disabled and parent and child spaces, an electric vehicle charging point, motorcycle spaces and a secure storage for bicycles.

·         Provision of a walking/cycle path near Caernarfon Road and a zebra crossing.

·         Provision of a bus shelter opposite the site on Caernarfon Road.

·         Introduction of a lower speed limit of 30mph along Caernarfon Road.

·         Provision of an electricity sub-station

·         Soft landscaping work.

 

It was explained that the site was located within the town's development boundary - and formed part of a wider site allocated for housing (T28) in the Local Development Plan (LDP). It lay within the Llŷn and Enlli Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest and part of the site formed the candidate wildlife site of Penlon Caernarfon.

 

The officer referred to the assessment that had been made of the main matters, such as the development's impact on the housing allocation and on retail in the town centre.

 

Although the site had been allocated for housing in the LDP, a Viability Assessment had been received which stated, based on the current housing market, that it was not viable to develop the site for housing and that the applicant was stating that the proposal was essential to facilitate a residential provision on the site - it was unrealistic that any residential use would be brought forward in future without this development. Consequently, by introducing the alternative use of a supermarket the site would be unlocked, enabling some degree of residential development rather than none at all. It was also highlighted that the site had been marketed for residential use since 2020 and that no offers had been received on it. It was agreed that the development of part of the site for the proposed retail use facilitated the opportunity for the rest of the designation to be brought forward for the expected residential use, and based on evidence submitted with the application, that a departure from the LDP's relevant housing policies could be justified in this case.

 

In the context of the proposal's impact on existing shops and Pwllheli town centre, it was highlighted that Planning Policy Wales (PPW) stated that the need for a store may be quantitative or qualitative, but precedence should be given to establishing the quantitative need before assessing the qualitative need. In justifying the quantitative need it was explained that positive and negative aspects should be considered, with TAN4 referring to unintended consequences and a detrimental impact on town centres. It was noted that the applicants’ capacity assessment would not demonstrate a quantitative need for the proposed food store, if more up to date population and expenditure data was adopted, because there was no expenditure growth between 2022 and 2027. However, the need assessment failed to assess whether existing food stores were over or under-trading. The revised figures by the Council's experts suggested that the store could be supported based on the projected trading levels of over-trading in 2027 where high levels of trading at the existing Lidl and Iceland stores in Pwllheli could indicate operational issues and a poor customer experience at peak times.

 

Reference was made to the objection letters by Lidl which claimed that a replacement Lidl store could meet the quantitative and qualitative need and relieve the element of over-trading (although it would not fully relieve over-trading). However, there appeared to be no certainty that a planning application for a new Lidl store would be submitted or that the proposed store would be acceptable in planning terms. It was therefore considered, in the context of expenditure surplus, that the absence of evidence of the quantitative and/or qualitative need for the proposed discount food store was not reasonable grounds for refusal, therefore the application was acceptable based on need in relation to Policies MAN 1 and MAN 3 of the LDP and PPW.

 

It was stated that the sensitivity analysis by the Council's experts had produced similar impact percentages, and that residual post-development turnover levels in 2027 would only be marginally lower. It was noted that Pwllheli would be the most affected centre, and that most of the trade diverted from Pwllheli would come from the large edge-of-centre stores i.e., Asda and Lidl. Technically, these stores were not afforded planning policy protection from the impact of out-of-centre retail proposals, but if trade diversion from these stores resulted in a significant loss of linked shopping trips made to the town centre, then the impact on stores on the edge-of-town centres would be a material consideration.

 

It was suggested that the impact on town centre convenience goods businesses in 2027 would be -14.6%, with the Iceland, B&M, Home Bargains and Spar stores most affected. These stores were estimated to be trading significantly above their company average sales densities and were unlikely to experience trading difficulties. It was added that the impact on small convenience goods shops was likely to be significantly less than the -14.6% and as a result, shop closures were unlikely, and the Asda and Lidl stores at the edge-of-town were also expected to trade satisfactorily. On balance, it was considered that there would be no significant impact on the vitality and
viability of the town centre from the new store, and that there will be no material conflict
with policies PS15, MAN 1 and MAN3 and PPW.

 

In accordance with PPW, the applicant had conducted a sequential site search, by firstly seeking an alternative site within the town centre, and secondly seeking a site on the edge of the centre. A suitable site was not found in these locations and therefore the area had been expanded to the proposed site outside the centre, but within the limits of the settlement and the development boundary. It was reported that the officers were satisfied with the conclusions of the sequential assessment and that they were not aware of any sequentially preferable sites. Consequently, it was considered that the application complied with policies MAN 3, MAN 1 and PPW in terms of selecting a sequential site.

 

The application was supported by evidence which recognised that the proposal, when completed, was likely to create 25 full-time equivalent posts and 15 part-time posts.  Although the proposed figures/benefits were only indicative, it was acknowledged that the proposal did offer economic benefits and that it was likely to make a positive contribution to the area's economy in accordance with the aims of the LDP.

 

It was reported, in accordance with the requirements of policy PS 1 and the relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance that a Welsh Language Statement had been submitted with the application, and the Language Unit welcomed the commitments contained within it. Based on the submitted information, and subject to planning conditions for securing bilingual signs and alleviation measures, the application was considered acceptable.

 

In the context of the proposal's design and its visual impact considering the location, scale and finish of the building together with the ground levels and a landscaping plan, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable and that it would not have a significantly harmful impact on the local landscape or the Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest designation.

 

In terms of residential and general amenities, it was noted that objections had been received based on the effects of noise, traffic and privacy and that these matters had been addressed in full. It was not considered that the proposal would have a significant harmful effect on nearby residents with regard to their amenities based on their relationship with the site, and subject to planning conditions which would specify working hours during construction and the distribution and delivery of goods, noise levels and air quality.

 

In the context of transport and access matters, it was highlighted that the proposal included the provision of a new access as well as a foot/cycle path, a crossing and a 30mph zone. The application was supported by a Transport Assessment and a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit, with the Transportation Unit confirming that the proposal was acceptable in respect of the changes and improvements. In addition, the proposal would include sustainable drainage systems and measures, the installation of permeable tarmac on the car park, the inclusion of soak-aways in areas that have percolation capacity, and an open attenuation pond on the site.

 

It was not considered that the proposal would cause a significant harmful impact to local biodiversity, and it was reported that the proposal included a range of biodiversity enhancements such as,

·         Planting native hedges.

·         Planting 64 trees to replace 4 that would be lost.

·         Planting a mixture of wildflowers and a wildflower mix for a woodland.

·         The provision of 1,204 square meters of SuDS turf and a wet meadow mix of improved botanical biodiversity value than at present.

·         Planting of a native shrubbery mix.

·         Protect a corner of land which would be suitable for fungi.

 

The Members were reminded that the site had been designated for residential development in the LDP and although it was not a residential development being proposed, the designation would also cause changes to the site. It was considered that the proposal, with appropriate planning conditions, was acceptable in relation to policies PS 19 and AMG 5 of the LDP, and PPW.

 

b)         Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent made the following observations:

·         She welcomed the recommendation to approve.

·         Aldi had been searching for a site in Pwllheli since 2015.

·         The shop would offer a choice to customers.

·         The shop would enable people to stay locally - saving them from having to travel to Bangor / Porthmadog.

·         The supermarkets of Pwllheli town were located on the outskirts.

·         The proposal satisfied the impact and design tests.

·         The site was not viable for housing alone - the development would unlock the site.

·         The site had been marketed for three years - no offers had been received.

·         By providing an access road, this would save money for housing developers.

·         Biodiversity matters were being supported.

·         There were significant benefits to the development - providing 40 jobs.

·         Aldi was a good employer - it offered a high salary amongst supermarkets.

·         Connection routes and a bus provision were included to serve local people.

·         If permitted, Aldi would begin the work in the new year.

 

c)         Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following comments:

·         The scheme was a complex one, the conditions were important.

·         The scheme had gained interest locally.

·         The site was currently a green field on a hill into the town - the proposal would alter 'the feeling of arriving at Pwllheli'.

·         The field had been designated for housing, but efforts had failed due to the costs.

·         She welcomed the application by Aldi store which would prepare the site for a further housing development.

·         Concern that the location was wet; there were ancient trees on the site; the impact on nature - it was a beautiful and tranquil site. Nevertheless, Aldi intended to carry out substantial work to protect nature.

·         Construction land was in short supply in Pwllheli. Despite identifying potential locations, Aldi had done extensive work in respect of the validity of the site.

·         There was hustle and bustle in the town; a feeling of a successful future.

·         There was a need to ensure a link with the town - not a store where people would pass through - she supported the proposal of providing a local bus service - good collaboration.

·         There was no intention to compete with local businesses - there was no bakery or butcher in the shop.

·         The applicant had communicated well and had responded to local residents' concerns.

·         Despite traffic and access concerns, conditions to alleviate concerns had been noted.

·         The applicant had corresponded bilingually - need to continue with this attitude.

·         Aldi was a good employer - Pwllheli deserved good employment.

·         She welcomed travel plans for staff.

·         She encouraged Members to consider the observations in reaching their decision.

 

ch)         It was proposed and seconded to approve the application.

 

d)    During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by members:

·         The proposal offered more choice to the residents of Pwllheli.

·         Aldi had alleviated concerns and had done their homework.

·         The shop offered affordable food.

 

·         Concern that it was Aldi themselves who had paid a marketing company to present evidence and that the language statement had also been prepared by Aldi.

·         The location was not suitable - flooding concerns - the land was boggy, wet and a ditch and a small stream ran through the site.

·         Stores such as Asda, Iceland, Lidl and B&M were all close to the centre - this development was outside - it would not be possible to walk there, therefore the effect was negative.

·         Concern about the impact on the high street / town centre - there was no demand for another shop.

·         It was a ‘major’ development - it would not be screened - in a dip, it would therefore be out of view.

·         Pwllheli Town Council objected to the application.

·         There were enough supermarkets for Llŷn.

 

In response to the observations, the Assistant Head of Department stated that it was the applicant's responsibility to provide evidence and a language statement, nonetheless the language statement had been challenged by the Council's Language Unit and the Council had employed experts to assess the marketing issues and challenge Aldi's statistics. He added that the officers' assessment was thorough, it was a firm recommendation, and the application complied with local and national policies - there was no evidence base to refuse the application for reasons of the impact on Pwllheli town centre. He also added that NRW, the Drainage Unit nor the Transportation Unit had objected to the application based on flooding concerns, and without the investment in the access / infrastructure improvements to the site by the applicant, it would not be possible to develop housing there in future.

 

In response to a question regarding the reasonable steps that Aldi would take to ensure that 20% of their workforce spoke Welsh, and although there would be no legal basis to this, only encouragement for them to comply, the Assistant Head noted that it was not possible to stipulate the language commitment as a condition, but the applicant had offered commitments beyond the requirements of the application with regard to appointing workers who were Welsh speakers. He added that conditions would be included for bilingual signs.

 

RESOLVED: To approve the application subject to the following conditions:

 

1.            Timescales

2.            In accordance with the approved plans.

3.            Materials in accordance with the plans unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority.

4.            Retail conditions to limit floor space area, no subdivision into smaller units.

5.            Store opening times

6.            Control of delivery times.

7.            Highways conditions in terms of completing the access, road work, parking spaces and prevention of surface water.

8.            Public protection conditions in respect of a ventilation system/heat recovery unit, noise levels from mechanical equipment, barrier on the goods delivery bay.

9.            Building Control Plan

10.          Adhere to the mitigation measures in the Air Quality Assessment

11.          Undertake the work in accordance with the landscaping scheme and Soft Landscaping Maintenance and Management Plan, a requirement to replant within a period of five years.

12.          Welsh language improvement/mitigation measures / bilingual signage

13.          In accordance with the lighting scheme

14.          In accordance with the Ecological Survey Report.

15.          In accordance with the Environmental Management Plan.

 

Notes:-

1.            Major development

2.            SUDS

3.            Highways - powers under Section 171/184 of the Highways Act 1980

4.            Observations from Welsh Water

5.            Observations from Public Protection

6.            Observations from NRW