SAINSBURY'S SUPERMARKETS LTD

CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

PLANNING AND RETAIL STATEMENT

JANUARY 2010

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 1

2. Site and Surroundings 5

3. Proposed Development 10

4. Planning Policy Review 17

5. Retail Analysis 37

6. Planning Assessment 64

7. Draft Heads of Terms 71

8. Summary and Conclusions 72

Appendices:

Appendix 1 Site Location Plan

Appendix 2 Existing Building Survey Location Plan

Appendix 3 Illustrative Masterplan

Appendix 4 Convenience Goods Capacity Assessment

Appendix 5 Retail Impact Assessment

Appendix 6 Sequential Assessment

TA Ref: SAIL2044

Office Address: 25 Savile Row London W1S 2ES

Telephone 020 7851 4010

Date of Issue: January 2010

1

1. Introduction

1.1 This planning and retail statement has been prepared by Turley Associates in support of a hybrid planning application by Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd (Sainsbury’s) at the Churnet Works site in Leek (the ‘Application Site’).

1.2 The application is in hybrid form because the details of the retail, petrol station and employment units are known from the outset, including the accommodation for Sainsbury’s itself and the existing site’s relocated employment occupiers. These land uses are therefore submitted in full with no matters reserved for future determination. The details of the residential units are to be finalised once a development partner has been selected. As a result, this element is submitted in outline form, with access submitted for approval. All other matters, namely layout, scale, appearance and landscaping are reserved for detailed approval.

1.3 The description of development is as follows:

“Retail (Class A1), Employment (flexible uses between Classes B1, B2 and B8), Petrol filling station (sui generis), and Residential (Class C3) with associated car parking, access, highway, landscaping and other works, and public open space.”

1.4 The scheme has been subject of extensive discussions and consultation with senior officers at the local planning authority, key stakeholders and the local community. The scheme has been finalised reflecting where appropriate, the outcome of these discussions.

Summary of Scheme Benefits

1.5 The scheme will deliver the comprehensive redevelopment of a run down underutilised site in a key gateway location. It will provide significant improvements to the existing retail offer of the town, additional housing provision (including affordable housing), modern employment premises and a large area of public open space.

1.6 In summary, the key benefits of the scheme include:

• The delivery (through private investment) of one of only two sites identified in the Core Strategy Submission Draft as a Major Regeneration Opportunity Site for the mix of uses envisaged by the Council;

2

• the single ownership of the site will allow the speedy delivery of the scheme and the resultant benefits;

• creation of between 625-675 new job opportunities – the majority of which will be sourced locally;

• retention of existing Churnet Works tenants into new purpose built accommodation and attracting new employers into the town;

• provision of much need housing accommodation include affordable housing provision;

• provision of enhanced shopping facilities that will complement rather than compete with the existing town centre retailers and retain expenditure currently leaking to other stores/centres beyond Leek;

• opportunity to address existing site issues such as flooding, anti-social behaviour, contamination and the generally run-down unattractive appearance of the site;

• opportunity to open the currently private site up to public access including the provision of enhanced areas of public open space and environmental improvements to the River Churnet;

• opportunity to enhance the setting of the Listed Brindley Mill and provide an attractive gateway into the town;

• provision of car parking that will be linked to the town centre by a regular shuttle bus;

• Improvements to the accessibility of the site including enhanced vehicular, bus, pedestrian and cycle access;

• reintroduces scale and massing fronting Macclesfield Road and introduces the use of local materials such as Staffordshire blue brick; and

• wider sustainability benefits.

1.7 It should however be noted from the outset that the foodstore element of the proposal is critical to the delivery of the wider regeneration of the site. Without this element, it is unlikely that privately funded development would come forward within the short/medium term and as a result, the site (and its current issues) will remain for the foreseeable future.

3

Structure of Statement

1.8 This statement addresses all the planning and retail issues arising from the application proposal, setting out the background to and detailed justification for the scheme. The statement is arranged as follows:

• Section 2 – sets out a brief description of the application site and surrounding area, together with a short summary of the site’s planning history;

• Section 3 – provides a description of the various elements of the proposed development;

• Section 4 – provides a summary of the relevant planning policy requirements;

• Section 5 – sets out the retail justification of the scheme when considered against the advice contained in national policy;

• Section 6 – sets out the planning assessment of the scheme demonstrating accordance with the Development Plan and other material considerations;

• Section 7 – outlines the anticipated Heads of Terms; and

• Section 8 - outlines a summary of the Statement and the conclusions arising.

Additional Documentation

1.9 The statement should be read in conjunction with the following documents that form part of the planning application:

• Planning application form and ownership certificates;

• Scheme drawings prepared by Chetwoods Architects;

• Landscape Drawings prepared by Arthur Amos Associates;

• Environmental Statement and Non-Technical Summary (November 2009) prepared by Turley Associates;

4

• Design and Access Statement prepared by Chetwoods Architects;

• Statement of Community Involvement prepared by Gough Allen Stanley;

• Transport Assessment and Interim Travel Plan prepared by Denis Wilson Partnership;

• External Lighting Strategy prepared by Synergy; and

• Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Assessment prepared by Synergy.

1.10 Read together, these documents and drawings provide a comprehensive analysis of, and justification for, the proposed development.

5

2. Site and Surroundings

2.1 This section provides an overview of the physical characteristics of the site and its surroundings, together with commentary on the relevant planning history.

The Application Site

2.2 The extent of the application site is shown on the site location plan attached at Appendix 1. The site is bounded by the River Churnet and Abbey Green Road to the east, Macclesfield Road and Mill Street to the south, and the River Churnet overflow channel to the west and north.

2.3 The site area extends to some 9.8 hectares and can be divided into 3 different elements namely; buildings to the south of the River Churnet, buildings to the north of the River Churnet and land to the north east of the works. The ground levels across the site are relatively flat.

Buildings South of the River Churnet

2.4 A variety of building types are located on this part of the site, bounded by the Chemical Plant to the west, Churnet Works to the north, the former Mill to the east and Macclesfield Road to the south. These groups of buildings are used primarily for industrial/warehouse purposes. A Building Survey Location plan identifies the various building numbers, this is located in Appendix 2.

2.5 At the western end of this part of the site, an industrial building unit comprising 3 small one storey brick industrial buildings (Building 6), with a corrugated metal clad pitched roof, is set back from Macclesfield Road with car parking in front, which is used by the adjacent Tessenderlo Chemical Plant. Two large storage tanks are visible from the highway located to the south west of the building. Any views of the buildings from Macclesfield Road are obscured by a boundary wall, storage tanks and hedge.

2.6 To the rear of this building a unit (Building 5) of similar design and function is located however the roof consists of a double pitch and the configuration of the building follows the line of the River Churnet, resulting in a slight kink in the facing wall. Access for these buildings is taken from Macclesfield Road and located immediately to the east of the existing chemical plant.

2.7 To the east of Building 6 are two separate workshops and a warehouse unit (Buildings 12 and 11) that share a service yard which also forms the access to the

6

units from Macclesfield Road. The corrugated green portal roof of the warehouse unit (Building 11) is visible from Macclesfield Road, with the workshop unit slightly set back allowing for the shared service area. The warehouse unit and workshop unit are both one storey buildings with a height of approximately 15 metres.

2.8 To the east of the warehouse unit there is a small service yard and space for informal car parking, with an access from Macclesfield Road. This service yard appears to serve both Building 11 as well as two small one storey industrial units (Building 10), with corrugated metal roofing and cladding.

2.9 Immediately to the east of these units (beyond the application site) is a two storey brick building facing Macclesfield Road. At the rear, the building rises to 3 storeys, with a pitched roof. The unit appears vacant albeit the signage indicates it was formerly used as part of the Supersport Ltd clothing manufacturing company.

Buildings North of River Churnet

2.10 This section of the site consists of a row of three large industrial/warehouse buildings located adjacent to each other. These units are bounded by the River Churnet to the south, the chemical works to the west, the area of overgrown private open space o the north and the river Churnet to the east.

2.11 The largest unit (Building 1) (approximately 14,000 sq m gross) is located at the eastern end of the row of units and consists of a one storey building with brick elevations and corrugated metal saw tooth roof, with chimneys and glazing on the north facing roof panels. Access to this unit is taken from Abbey Green Road via a bridge over the River Churnet. Once over the small bridge, vehicles have the option of turning right into an articulated lorry parking area or continuing forward into a car parking area/turning circle area, controlled by a gated entrance.

2.12 Building 3 is located immediately to the west of Building 1 and is of similar design and construction having brick walls and a saw tooth metal corrugated roof. The unit is considerably smaller that Building 1 consisting of some 6,000 sq m gross. Building 3 can be accessed via the same route as used for Building 1 from Abbey Green Road, however access can also be taken from Macclesfield Road, at the access immediately to the west of the chemical plant which also serves the buildings to the south of the river Churnet. A small level bridge crossing runs over the River Churnet to allow access to the northern side of the river. A small service yard area and storage tanks are located to the rear of Building 3.

7

2.13 The third industrial unit (Building 4) is located in the western corner of the site and is bounded by the River Churnet overflow channel to the west and north, the Chemical Plant to the south and Building 3 to the east.

2.14 This building is slightly smaller than Building 3 being of some 4,000 sq m gross external area. The unit is one storey with a traditional pitched roof and double pitched roof design. The unit is accessed directly from Macclesfield Road. In addition there is a small warehouse unit (Building 2) which sits directly to the rear of Building 4.

Land to the North East of the Site

2.15 To the north east, the remainder of the site is an area of overgrown grass and shrubs which extends to about 3.01 hectares. The area is triangular in shape, and is bounded by the River Churnet and a small terrace of houses to the east. The overflow channel bounds the site to the north and the industrial units bound the site to the south west. The south western and south eastern boundaries benefit from being lined with a number of trees, bushes and shrubs. This part of the site has no public access and provides an under utilised and unmanaged area of space.

The Surrounding Area

Abbey Green Road

2.16 The eastern boundary of the site is bounded by the River Churnet and Abbey Green Road which runs alongside the river to the east. The access bridge to the large industrial buildings, north of the River Churnet, is taken from Abbey Green Road. Immediately to the north of the access bridge is a small footbridge which is no longer in use. This structure is Grade II Listed.

2.17 Further north along Abbey Green Road an industrial works premises which consists of a two story brick building, and occupies the land between Park Road and Macclesfield Road. The northern part of this site consists of a service yard and smaller workshop premises.

2.18 Opposite these works on the northern side of Park Road is a terrace of residential properties known as Inkerman Terrace. These houses are accessed by steps from Abbey Green Road, and are surrounded by fields to the north.

8

2.19 Opposite Inkerman Terrace is 17 Abbey Green Road, which is a dwelling set back from the highway by virtue of a front garden. Immediately to the north of the dwelling is a row of 8-10 lock up garages.

2.20 Abbey Green Road crosses the River Churnet at Broad’s Bridge, which is a Grade II Listed structure to the north east of the site. Prior to crossing Broads Bridge there are some additional warehousing units including a timber yard. Immediately after crossing Broad’s Bridge a small terrace of houses back onto the north eastern part of the site. Opposite the terrace of houses is a man made weir, which feeds into the overflow channel which runs back under Abbey Green Road and along the northern and western boundaries of the site.

Macclesfield Road/Mill Street

2.21 To the south of the site there are a variety of uses and buildings.

2.22 Immediately to the south east of the site is a cluster of buildings that comprise the following: Supersport Ltd warehouse which is a 4 storey building made of a brick construction with a saw tooth roof; the former Brindley’s Corn Mill, which is Grade II Listed and now converted to a museum; a further building associated with the Mill operation and finally the Leek Conservative Working Mens Club, which is Grade II Listed.

2.23 The St John the Evangelist Mission Church sits opposite the site on the southern side of Macclesfield Road. Moving westwards away from the church, there are a number of commercial uses located in the area bounded by Kiln Lane and Macclesfield Road. This area is relatively run down and contains a vacant works/office unit situated directly behind the Dyers Arms public house, which fronts onto the corner of Macclesfield Road and Kiln Lane.

2.24 In addition, a warehouse unit is located to the west of the vacant works/office unit which incorporates the grounds of a former disused Petrol Filling Station. The unit is bounded to the west by the rear of the residential properties on Thomas Street. Further residential properties are located to the west of Thomas Street on Grace Street and Orchard Gardens.

2.25 Grace Street and Orchard Gardens form the boundary for the Leek Town Football Club which is located directly opposite the Courtalds Chemical Works on Macclesfield Road. The White Lion Pub is located immediately to the west of the football ground.

9

2.26 Following the direction of Macclesfield Road, a small Shell Petrol Filling Station is located adjacent to the White Lion Pub. To the rear of the PFS and the White Lion Pub the ‘Bridge End Store’ sells a variety of home and garden products. Immediately northwest of the PFS is a row of 6 houses which front directly onto Macclesfield Road. Continuing up Macclesfield Road, on the southern side is the Leek Hockey club which consists of a small clubhouse and playing fields. The rear of the properties on the southern side of Macclesfield Road are surrounded by fields.

River Churnet Overflow Channel

2.27 Apart from the immediate boundary to west of the site, which incorporates part of the Courtalds Chemical Plant, the surroundings to the north of the overflow channel, consists predominantly of fields and green land interspersed with individual houses.

Planning History

2.28 A planning history search was requested from the LPA. However the original planning permission for the works could not be located and it is thought that the records have been either lost or misplaced. In this regard, it is unclear when planning permission was first granted for the use of the site as an industrial/employment area.

2.29 The LPA’s planning history records for the site do however show that since 1973 there have been no comprehensive planning applications to redevelop the site.

10

3. Proposed Development

Description of Development

3.1 The planning application proposes a major mixed-use development of the Application Site. The planning application is submitted in the form of a hybrid planning application. An illustrative masterplan has been submitted which demonstrates the aspirations for the Application Site (Appendix 3).

3.2 The application is in hybrid form because the details of the retail, petrol station and employment units are known from the outset, including the accommodation for Sainsbury’s itself and the existing site’s relocated employment occupiers. These land uses are therefore submitted in full as part of the detailed planning application, the description of development of which is as follows:

“Retail (Class A1), Employment (flexible uses between Classes B1, B2 and B8), Petrol filling station (sui generis), and Residential (Class C3) with associated car parking, access, highway, landscaping and other works, and public open space.”

3.3 The details of the residential units will be finalised once a development partner has been selected and this element therefore forms part of an outline planning application, with access submitted for approval. All other matters, namely layout, scale, appearance and landscaping are reserved for detailed approval.

Scheme Components

Sainsbury’s Store

3.4 The scheme will provide a new Sainsbury’s store made up of a retail sales floor, back up areas, customer toilets and staff facilities.

3.5 Table 3.1 provides a breakdown of the floor areas of the various components of the store.

11

Table 3.1 – Breakdown of proposed store floorspace

Use Area

Sales Area 3,716 sq m

Back Up 2,428 sq m

JS Restaurant 294 sq m

Atrium, lobby, domestic & facilities 396 sq m

TOTAL 6,834 sq m (GEA)

3.6 The store will meet an identified need for improved retailing within Leek and the surrounding area. The need and benefits arising are explored further in Section 5 of this Statement. The store will also provide approximately 300-350 new job opportunities for the local economy.

3.7 The store will offer a comprehensive range of convenience goods and a smaller range of comparison goods items to provide customers with the choice and offer expected at a modern foodstore. It will also include hot and cold fresh food counters along with customer toilets and baby change facilities.

3.8 The design of the store has been developed to respond to the site context, the requirements of Sainsbury’s and to take on board comments and guidance received from the local community, Officers at the Council and the Urban Vision Design Review Panel. The approach seeks to create a contemporary development which responds positively and sensitively to the surrounding built and greenfield environment.

3.9 The store will be located to the north of the River Churnet, in the north western part of the site just south of the bend in the River Churnet overflow channel. The atrium entrance will face into the centre of the site which provides customer car parking. The general layout of the building is designed to minimise the visual impact on the surrounding countryside, with the positioning of the back up space and servicing located to the rear facing the overflow channel and existing Courtalds Chemical Plant. A ten metre easement is provided from the rear of the store to the culvert as required by the Environment Agency.

12

3.10 A secure service yard will be located adjacent to the southwest corner of the store, next to new employment units. The service yard is not anticipated to give rise to any visual or noise amenity issues given its location, but in any event it is proposed to be gated and enclosed by a timber clad fence to provide a practical and appropriate design.

3.11 The main store building will be one storey with the customer entrance provided from the customer car park via a store entrance lobby. Pedestrian crossing facilities are provided throughout the car park to enable customers safe access to the store on foot.

3.12 Further details regarding the design and elevation treatments of the store and the sustainability measures that are incorporated into the design approach are set out in the Design and Access Statement produced by Chetwoods Architects and the Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Assessment prepared by Synergy respectively.

3.13 Vehicular access to the site for customers and service vehicles will be taken from a new roundabout junction on Macclesfield Road. The access road will lead to a roundabout junction, with access to the store service yard and employment units at the first exit, access to the customer car park at the second exit and access to the retail unit service yard on the third exit. In order to enhance sustainable travel modes to and from the site, a shuttle bus is proposed to be operated between the store and the town centre. A dedicated bus stop and shelter is proposed within the site, located in a strategic position in close proximity to the foodstore and employment units.

3.14 The car park will provide 529 car parking spaces including 31 disabled bays and 21 parent and toddler spaces, 14 comfort spaces (wide spaces), motorcycle (19 bays) and cycle parking (15 stands) as well as 13 trolley bays. The main car parking is provided to the north east of the food store and retail units, abutting the proposed area of open space. The remainder of the car park including the specialist parking bays are located in the area between the foodstore and non food retail units. A detailed assessment of the transportation components and issues arising from the scheme is provided in the Transport Statement and Interim Travel Plan prepared by DWP.

3.15 The proposed opening hours of the store, the delivery hours of the store and the hours when the store and car park will be lit are proposed to be agreed with the local authority during discussions on the planning application. Such decisions will be informed by the findings of the Noise Assessment prepared by Denis Wilson Partnership and the lighting scheme prepared by Synergy.

13

Retail Units

3.16 In addition to the Sainsbury’s store, three individual retail units (totalling 2,875 sq m GEA) will be provided within the scheme. The frontage of these units will face the Sainsbury’s store on the opposite side of the shared customer car park. The units will be serviced by a separate shared service yard to the rear.

3.17 The service yard is proposed to be enclosed by a timber clad fence and bounded by significant landscape treatment to ensure, as detailed in the submitted Noise Assessment, that any noise emissions will be kept to acceptable levels. The proposed landscaping will also add interest to this part of the site and help to assimilate it into the wider development.

3.18 The retail units will provide an opportunity for a bulky goods retail offer within Leek and the units will be conditioned to restrict the type and range of goods that can be sold from the units. This will ensure that the units will not compete directly with the retail offer of the town centre, will attract new retailers to the town, and will provide a type of retailing currently deficient in Leek. Further details regarding the design and elevation treatments of the units are set out in the Design and Access Statement produced by Chetwoods Architects.

Residential Housing (north of River Churnet)

3.19 The residential element of the scheme will provide a mix of family housing and apartments. To the north of the River Churnet, it is proposed to provide 28 residential houses consisting of seven blocks of 4 two storey terraces, which face onto the new access road, existing Mill House and proposed landscaping. Each housing unit has one ‘off road’ parking space, a total of 28 spaces. The landscaping will screen the residential units from Abbey Green Road. All of the proposed residential units benefit from garden space to the front and the rear. The proposed residential street would run parallel to the River Churnet at the north and forms a crescent like configuration to the south towards the existing weir.

3.20 As the residential element of the scheme is submitted in outline form, the design and appearance are reserved and therefore illustrative material relating to these elements is provided as part of the application.

3.21 Vehicle access for the residential properties will be taken from a new vehicle crossing over the River Churnet from Abbey Green Road. This crossing will be provided as part of the development. This new access road will lead to a ‘T’ junction where a right and left turn is undertaken to access all the housing north and south of the River Churnet respectively.

14

Residential Housing (south of River Churnet)

3.22 To the south of the River Churnet, to the east of the proposed new access off Macclesfield Road, up to 61 residential apartments and 6 residential houses are proposed.

3.23 The apartments are arranged in an ‘L’ shape layout, fronting onto the new access road and Macclesfield Road. Car parking (68 spaces), is provided to the rear of the unit and will not be visible from Macclesfield Road. Immediately to the east of the apartments, 6 additional housing units are proposed which will front onto Macclesfield Road. Pedestrian access to these housing units will be taken from Macclesfield Road, however vehicle access and parking will be shared with that provided for the apartments.

Employment Units

3.24 The area to the north of the River Churnet and south of the proposed Sainsbury’s foodstore is the proposed location for the replacement employment units within the site. A total of 11 employment units are proposed, over varying configurations ranging from floorspace sizes of 63 sq m (GIA) to 1,865 sq m (GIA).

3.25 The employment area is divided into two parts, with one block to the west, car parking in the middle and another block to the east. The western block contains two large units of 1,865 sq m (GIA) and 1,777 sq m (GIA), which are located to the north and south of a shared service yard between the two units. Access to the service yard is taken from the PFS access road immediately after the River Churnet crossing. Within the southern block, a smaller unit (Unit 2c) of 345 sq m (GIA) is incorporated within the building envelope. The frontage of these units face onto the car parking in the middle of this part of the site.

3.26 The eastern block will provide for 8 employment units. Unit 2K situated at the southern end of the block is the largest proposed unit within this block (831 sq m GIA). This unit has its own dedicated service yard to the south which is accessed from the car park.

3.27 The remaining 7 units are configured around unit 2K and offer smaller employment units with an average size of some 100-120 sq m gross. Each unit will be serviced individually with deliveries and service bays provided at the front of the units. The eastern block will also be landscaped on the eastern and southern elevations to enhance the visual amenity of the site.

15

3.28 The configuration and unit sizes of the proposed employment units have been designed specifically to accommodate existing site operators, with the 2 large units (Units 2A and 2B) to be used by Portland Dye and Scheme Printers. The additional units will provide employment floorspace for new users/occupiers.

3.29 The car park area between the two units proposes to provide 68 spaces including 6 disabled parking bays, for employees and customers.

3.30 Further details regarding the design and elevation treatments of the employment units are set out in the Design and Access Statement produced by Chetwoods Architects.

Petrol Filling Station

3.31 A PFS is proposed at a location south of the River Churnet and to the west of the new proposed access from Macclesfield Road. The PFS will form part of the Sainsbury’s offer and will provide 6 petrol filling pumps, a sales kiosk, car and jet wash facility. A recycling centre with vehicle lay-by is also provided to the north of the Jet Wash. The PFS will benefit from significant landscape treatment in and around the site.

3.32 Access to the PFS can be taken via the new site access from Macclesfield Road. The access road facilitates turning into the PFS on entering and or leaving the proposed development. Access can also be taken from the employment area via the southern access road, but it is not anticipated that customers would use this route. Further details regarding the design and elevation treatments of the PFS and the access arrangement are set out in the Design and Access Statement and Transport Assessment produced by Chetwoods Architects and Denis Wilson respectively.

Public Open Space and Pedestrian and Cycle Routes

3.33 Throughout the site a considerable amount of public open space is provided. In the south eastern corner of the site, north of the River Churnet open space is provided as part of the residential element. The open space is located immediately north of River Churnet and includes a pedestrian/cycle route which runs through the area from the access road to Abbey Green Road over the existing bridge which is currently used by the existing industrial units. Subject to structural review and feasibility analysis, the Grade II Listed pedestrian bridge may also be brought back into public use to complement the main pedestrian and cycle route access.

16

3.34 The proposed landscape enhancements and pedestrian and cycle routes to Abbey Green Road and throughout the site provide an enhanced setting to the Listed Buildings to the south. It also provides amenity value to those approaching the site from Leek. The additional access provision, especially in terms of pedestrian and cycle routes, enhances the sites connectivity and links with Leek Town Centre.

3.35 The north east part of the site currently consists of an area of overgrown grass and shrubs. The area is currently of low landscape quality and has no authorised public access. As part of the development it is proposed to enhance this element of the site so that it provides an area of public open space with nature and recreational value.

3.36 Additional landscaping is proposed throughout the site in order to enhance the habitat provision for certain species, in addition to providing adequate screening to the terrace of houses near to Broads Bridge as well as the adjacent car parking and proposed residential accommodation to the south of the proposed open space area.

3.37 Cycle and pedestrian routes will be provided through and around the area allowing better access and permeability through the site. Pedestrian access to the area will link up with the pedestrian access facilities within the store car park and the residential element of the site.

17

4. Planning Policy Review

4.1 This Section provides an assessment of the national, strategic and local planning policy context in respect of the proposed development.

Government Guidance

PPS1: Creating Sustainable Communities (February 2005)

4.2 PPS1 sets out the Government’s objectives for delivering sustainable development. The key themes are:

• the need for LPAs to actively promote and facilitate good quality development which is sustainable and consistent with their plans;

• plan policies should address accessibility for all members of the community to jobs, health, housing, education, shops, and leisure and community facilities in terms of both location and physical access.

• the need for the planning system to be transparent, accessible and accountable; and to actively promote participation and involvement.

4.3 The guidance sets out a series of key principles which should be applied to contribute to the delivery of sustainable development. These include promoting high quality inclusive design (paragraph 13 (iv)).

4.4 Social cohesion and inclusion is promoted within the guidance. This includes addressing accessibility for all members of the community to inter alia jobs, shops, leisure and community uses; and delivering safe, healthy and attractive places to live (paragraph 16).

4.5 Local authorities should seek to promote:

“The more efficient use of land through higher density, mixed-use development and the use of suitably located previously developed land and buildings back into beneficial use” (Paragraph 27 (viii).

4.6 Developments should optimise the potential of a site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including green and other spaces) and support local facilities and transport networks (paragraph 36).

18

PPS3: Housing (November 2006)

4.7 Reflecting policy in PPS1, guidance within PPS3 reaffirms the Government’s commitment to sustainability and good design. Paragraph 9 sets out the Government’s key housing policy goal:

“To ensure that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live.”

4.8 Paragraph 12 states that good design is fundamental to the development of high quality new housing, which contributes to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.

4.9 Paragraph 15 states that LPAs should encourage applicants to bring forward sustainable and environmentally friendly new housing developments.

4.10 Developments should optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including green and other spaces) and support local facilities and transport networks (paragraph 36).

4.11 In support of its objective of creating mixed and sustainable communities, it should be ensured that housing is developed in suitable locations, offering good access to jobs and key services and infrastructure (paragraph 36).

4.12 The priority for development should be previously developed land, in particular vacant and derelict sites and buildings.

4.13 When deciding planning applications, LPAs should have regard to achieving high quality housing, ensuring developments achieve a good mix of housing reflecting requirements of specific groups. Attention should also be paid to the suitability of the site and its environmental suitability, using land effectively and efficiently (paragraph 69).

4.14 There is a presumption that affordable housing will be provided to contribute towards a mix of housing. Off site provision of a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision may be accepted as long as the agreed approach contributes to the creation of mixed communities in the LPA’s area (paragraph 29).

PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (December 2009)

4.15 PPS4 was published in late December 2009. The document replaces PPG 4 (Industrial Commercial Development and Small Firms), PPG5 (Simplified Planning

19

Zones) and PPS6 (Planning for Town Centres). It also replaces elements of PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) and elements of PPG13 (Transport).

4.16 The guidance relates to all types of economic development including development within the B Use Classes, public and community uses and main town centre uses which provides either employment opportunities, generates wealth or produces or generates an economic output or product (Paragraph 4). The policy does not apply to housing development.

4.17 Clarity on what constitutes a town centre use is provided at Paragraph 7. This includes retail development, leisure and entertainment uses, offices and arts, culture and tourism development.

4.18 The document sets out the Governments overarching objective (paragraph 9) to encourage sustainable economic growth which will be assisted by the planning system by:

• Building prosperous communities;

• Reducing the gap in economic growth rates between regions, promoting regeneration and tackling deprivation;

• Delivering more sustainable patterns of development that reduce the need to travel (especially by car) and respond to climate change;

• Promote the vitality and viability of town and other centres as important places for communities; and

• Raising the quality of life and the environment in rural areas, whilst protecting the countryside.

4.19 The document is then split into 4 sections dealing with Using Evidence (Policy EC1), Plan Making (Policies EC2 – EC8), Monitoring (Policy EC9), and Development Management (Policies EC10 – EC19).

4.20 For the purposes of the consideration of this planning application, we concentrate on the Development Management policies below.

4.21 Policy EC10 encourages local authorities to adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic development and treat ‘favourably’ those that secure sustainable economic growth (policy EC10.1). All applications should be assessed against the following impact considerations:

20

• Whether the proposal will limit carbon dioxide emissions and minimise vulnerability to climate change;

• The accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the car and the effect on local traffic levels and congestion (after any proposed mitigation);

• Whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design;

• The impact on the economic and physical regeneration in the area; and

• The impact on local employment.

4.22 Policy EC14 details the supporting evidence required for planning applications for main town centre uses. This requires a sequential assessment (under Policy EC15) and an assessment addressing the anticipated impact (under Policy EC16) for proposals over 2,500sq m gross floorspace that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up to date development plan.

4.23 Assessments of impacts should focus in particular on the first 5 years after the implementation of the proposal (Policy EC14.7).

4.24 Policy EC15 reiterates the Governments commitment to the town centre first principle and reiterates the sequential approach to site selection (previously within PPS6). In this regard, assessments should:

• ensure that sites are assessed for their availability, suitability and viability;

• ensure that all in centre options have been thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered;

• ensure that where no town centre sites could accommodate a proposed development, preference is given to edge of centre locations which are well connected to the centre by means of easy pedestrian access;

• ensure that in considering sites in or on the edge of existing centres, developers and operators have demonstrated flexibility in terms of scale, format, car parking provision and the scope for disaggregation.

4.25 Policy EC16 details the impact criteria against which proposals should be assessed, namely:

• The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal;

21

• The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer;

• The impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in accordance with the development plan;

• In the context of a retail or leisure proposal, the impact of the proposal on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area, taking account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years from the time the application is made;

• If located in or on the edge of a town centre, whether the proposal is of an appropriate scale in relation to the size of the centre and its role within the hierarchy of centres; and

• Any locally important impacts on centres.

4.26 Policy EC17 indicates that where the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the sequential approach (Policy EC15) or where there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts (policies EC10.2 and 16.1) the application should be refused.

4.27 Where no significant adverse impacts have been identified under Policies EC10.2 and 16.1, planning applications should be determined by taking account of the positive and negative impacts of the proposal and any other material considerations and the likely cumulative effect of recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments.

4.28 Judgements in relation to the extent and significance of any impacts should be informed by the development plan, recent assessments of the health of town centres and any other published local information (Policy EC17.3).

4.29 Policy EC19 encourages local authorities to make effective use of planning conditions to implement their policies and proactively manage the impacts of development. Conditions could, prevent sub-division of units; ensure ancillary elements remain ancillary; specify the maximum floorspace permitted; limit the range of goods sold, and control the mix of convenience and comparison goods; and restrict delivery times and management of service provision to minimise impact on neighbouring residents.

4.30 Importantly, one of the most notable changes in PPS4 is the removal of the requirement for an applicant to demonstrate need for a proposal.

22

4.31 To assist the interpretation and implementation of the policies set out in PPS4, Practical Guidance on need, impact and the sequential approach was published alongside PPS4.

PPG13: Transport ( March 2001)

4.32 The objectives of PPG13 seek to integrate planning and transport at the national, regional, strategic and local level in order to:

• promote more sustainable transport choices;

• promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling; and

• reduce the need to travel, especially by car.

4.33 In seeking to achieve these objectives, the guidance advocates focusing major generators of travel demand in town and local centres and near to public transport interchanges (paragraph 20).

4.34 Local authorities should therefore seek to make maximum use of accessible town centre sites, or sites close to major transport interchanges, promoting intensive developments on these sites, making the most of the scarce opportunities (paragraph 21).

4.35 In relation to car parking, paragraph 52 of the guidance emphasises that policies within development plans should set maximum levels of car parking which encourage sustainable transport choices and will promote development in locations well served by public transport, walking and cycling. There should be no minimum requirement for development, other than parking for disabled people.

4.36 The guidance urges LPA’s to ensure that, when managing traffic, the needs of all users are addressed. Within town centres and other areas with a mixture of land uses, priority should be given to people over traffic. Well designed pedestrianisation and pedestrian priority schemes generally prove popular and commercially successful. LPAs should therefore actively consider traffic calming and the reallocation of road space to promote safe walking and cycling and to give priority to public transport (paragraph 67).

4.37 Walking is acknowledged as the most important mode of travel at the local level and LPA’s are encouraged to place greater priority on proposals that promote pedestrian accessibility and encourage pedestrian priority and ease of movement (paragraphs 75-77).

23

PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment (September 1994)

4.38 PPG15 provides policies relating to the Government’s aims for the identification and protection of historic buildings, Conservation Areas and other elements of the historic environment.

4.39 The Guidance emphasises that although choices sometimes have to be made, conservation and sustainable economic growth should be seen as complementary objectives and not as being in opposition to one another (paragraph 1.4).

4.40 The protection of the historic environment, whether that be inter alia Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas or the wider historic environment should be fully taken into account by LPAs both in the formulation of development plan policies and in the determination of individual planning applications (paragraph 2.1).

4.41 A streamlined version of the guidance has recently been published; Draft PPS15: Planning for the Historic Environment. The key thrust of the document remains as set out in PPG15.

PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (July 2002)

4.42 PPG17 states that well designed and implemented planning policies for open space, sport and recreation are fundamental to delivering broader Government objectives in so far as they underpin people’s quality of life.

4.43 The Guidance states that encouraging local networks of high quality and well managed and maintained open spaces can help to achieve the Government’s objective of supporting an urban renaissance.

4.44 There are a broad range of open spaces that may be considered to be of value, and which are set out in the ‘Definitions’ Annex of PPG17. These include parks and gardens, natural and semi-natural urban green spaces, provision for children and teenagers and civic spaces.

4.45 LPAs are expected to undertake assessments of existing and future needs of their communities for open space, sports and recreational facilities (paragraph 1) and should use the information gained to set local standards for the provision of facilities in their areas (paragraph 7).

4.46 When planning for new open space and sport and recreation facilities, local authorities are expected to consider a number of general principles (paragraph 20):

24

i) Promote accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport, and ensure that facilities are accessible for people with disabilities.

ii) Locate more intensive recreational uses in sites where they can contribute to town centre vitality and viability.

iii) Avoid any significant loss of amenity to residents, neighbouring uses or biodiversity.

iv) Improve the quality of public realm through good design.

v) Look to provide areas of open space in commercial and industrial areas.

vi) Add to and enhance the range and quality of existing facilities.

vii) Consider security and public safety.

viii) Meet the regeneration needs of areas, using brownfield sites as a preference.

ix) Consider the scope for using any surplus land for open space, sport or recreation use.

x) Assess the effect of new facilities on social exclusion.

xi) Consider the recreational needs of visitors and tourists.

Other National Guidance

4.47 Other national guidance relevant to the consideration of this planning application include:

• PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (August 2005)

• PPG16: Archaeology and Planning (November 1990)

• PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control (November 2004)

• PPG24: Planning and Noise (September 1994)

• PPS25: Development and Flood Risk (2006)

4.48 These documents are explored in the relevant supporting documents accompanying this application.

25

The Development Plan

4.49 The Development Plan for the application site consists of the following documents:

• Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands (January 2008);

• Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996-2011 (May 2001); and

• Adopted Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Local Plan (September 1998).

4.50 These documents are reviewed in turn.

Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands (January 2008)

4.51 The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the West Midlands was first issued as RPG11 for the West Midlands in June 2004. At that time a number of issues were identified for further work, to be undertaken as part of three phases. Phase 1 of this work, on the Black Country, has now been completed and published within the revised RSS in January 2008. These revisions do not have any relevance to Leek. Other policies or text not affected by the revision have not been updated to reflect changes since the publication of RSS.

4.52 The Plan confirms the vision for the West Midlands as being:

“…an economically successful, outward looking and adaptable Region, which is rich in culture and environment, where all people, working together, are able to meet their aspirations and needs without prejudicing the quality of life of future generations.” (para.2.2).

4.53 The Plan identifies a number of major challenges in the sub-region which include: an urban renaissance; diversifying and modernising the region’s economy; and modernising the transport infrastructure (para.3.4).

4.54 Leek is identified within the RSS as a Town outside the Major Urban Areas. It is acknowledged within the plan that these towns are experiencing decline or negative change which is affecting their potential to sustain a successful economy or to provide quality living environments. This is often underlined by high unemployment and loss of services. Under Policy UR2 Local Authorities should seek to bring forward local regeneration policies and programmes in such Towns.

4.55 Policy SR3, Sustainable Design and Construction seeks to ensure that all new buildings are designed and constructed to the highest possible environmental

26

standards. The policy requires a sustainability statement for medium and large scale development planning applications. All new housing developments are expected to meet CABE Building for Life ‘good’ standards and meet at least level 3 Code for Sustainable Homes.

4.56 All new and medium large scale development shall incorporate renewable or low carbon energy equipment to meet at least 10% of the developments residual energy demand.

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996-2011 (May 2001)

4.57 The current Structure Plan was adopted in May 2001 and sets out the strategic planning policies for development in the period up to 2011. A number of policies have been saved beyond September 2007, however, where policies have not been saved, more reliance is placed on national Planning Policy Statements and the Regional Spatial Strategy to help determine planning applications until such time as replacement Development Plan Documents are adopted.

4.58 The Structure Plan identifies Leek as a town centre in need of improvement to secure the role of serving large rural hinterlands. The Plan identifies Leek as a ‘Medium Town Centre and Conurbation District Centre’ where they may have capacity to be transformed by larger scale development, provided it does not detract from their character.

4.59 A hierarchy of centres is identified in the Plan area and set out at Policy TC1, which states that the vitality and viability of these centres should be sustained and enhanced. The policy encourages the growth of centres, but states that development proposals should be of a scale appropriate to the centre to which they relate.

4.60 Following the principles and policies of national and regional guidance the structure plan reinforces the need to encourage sustainable travel patterns through land use policy. Policy T1 has been split into two parts with Policy T1a encouraging new development in sustainable locations and making efficient use of the existing infrastructure as well as moving towards more sustainable transportation. Policy T1b supports this by promoting an integrated transport strategy. Policies T4 and T5 encourage greater priority to be given to pedestrians and cyclists respectively.

27

Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan (September 1998)

4.61 The Staffordshire Moorlands District Council (SMDC) Local Plan was adopted in September 1998. Under the regulations of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 a direction was made in September 2007 by the Secretary of State which saved some policies until they are adequately replaced by the Local Development Framework.

4.62 The current status for the LDF is as follows:

• Core Strategy publication consultation was undertaken between May – June 2009. Consultation is currently taking place on the Addendum to the Core Strategy Submission Version, which seeks to amend housing provision figures. The Consultation period ends on 22 January 2010. The examination on the Core Strategy is expected to take place later in 2010.

• The Site Allocations DPD initial consultation is expected to commence in the summer of 2010.

4.63 The Core Strategy is advanced and should therefore be given weight when assessing this proposal. Notwithstanding the Core Strategy, there are still a number of relevant policies to be considered within the Local Plan. These are reviewed below.

Natural Environment

4.64 The north eastern part of the site is located within the Special Landscape Area. Within this area planning permission will not be granted for development which would materially detract from the high quality of landscape, because of its siting, scale, design and materials and associated traffic generation (Policy N8). Any development within this area will need to be of high quality, and the Council will promote high standards of design for development (Policy N9).

4.65 Within areas of unimproved grassland and on surrounding land, planning permission will only be granted for development if it can be demonstrated that the need for the development outweighs the nature conservation importance of the grassland (Policy N17).

4.66 Measures for the protection, conservation and enhancement of hedgerows and trees, will be required where appropriate (Policy N22).

28

Built Environment

4.67 Development proposals will be expected to demonstrate a good quality of design which takes account of the scale, character, siting, alignment, mass, design, colour and materials of their surroundings. Design and landscaping of the spaces between and around buildings throughout the site should take account of and enhance the scale and character of their surroundings (Policy B13). In addition, Policy B13 sets out that proposals should:

• maintain existing site features;

• use appropriate natural materials for hard landscaping;

• provide satisfactory standards of amenity for existing and proposed users of buildings;

• mitigate adverse environmental effects;

• make adequate provision for people with restricted mobility; and

• make provision for safety and security by maximising opportunities for natural surveillance.

Housing

4.68 Housing will be expected to be located within the development boundaries of villages or towns where it can be satisfactorily and economically serviced and is in sympathy with the character of the existing settlement in terms of density as well as scale and environmental quality (Policy H4).

4.69 SMDC will seek to ensure that affordable housing is available both for sale and rent (Policy H14). SMDC will seek to negotiate with developers to secure provision of affordable housing to meet proven local needs where 40 or more dwellings are sought to be provided, or where an area of greater than 1.5Ha is proposed at sites or settlements of more than 3,000 people.

Employment

4.70 Development involving the loss of existing employment sites will not be permitted except where it can be shown that the location is undesirable in environmental or traffic terms, and where an alternative site is available (Policy E7).

29

4.71 Industrial development shall not have a detrimental effect on the amenity of nearby houses and should include landscaping schemes which meet the design criteria of Policy B13. In addition suitable road access and parking should be provided which would ensure levels of traffic can be absorbed into the existing road network (Policy E10).

Transport

4.72 Planning permission will not be granted for development which would lead to additional cars or commercial vehicles entering unsuitable areas, particularly those that are environmentally sensitive (Policy T14).

Retail

4.73 There are three designated town centres in Staffordshire Moorlands, namely Leek, Cheadle and Biddulph. Leek is considered to serve a substantial rural hinterland, with a predominance of small specialist shops. The majority of retail policies have been deleted from the plan as national policy provides more up to date guidance.

Open Space

4.74 Policy R1 provides minimum space standards of 3.2Ha of public space per 1,000 population. Where there is a deficiency, residential development will be expected to make provision for public open space (Policy R2). Visual open space shall be designated where the general intention will be to retain the land’s open and undeveloped appearance (Policy R5).

Developer Contributions

4.75 SMDC will seek contributions from developers towards the provision of community facilities and environmental and infrastructure improvements where directly related to the development or the use of land after development (Policy A1).

Staffordshire Moorlands Local Development Framework

Core Strategy

4.76 The Core Strategy sets out a vision for the District to 2026. The vision identifies Leek as the principal town in the District. The town will be distinctive and unique in

30

terms of its character and the quality and range of shops, services and facilities it provides for residents and visitors (para 4.3).

Site Specific Allocation

4.77 Within the Core Strategy, the application site is identified as a Major Regeneration Opportunity Site under Policy SS5a. The policy seeks a mix of uses which may include employment, residential, retail and leisure uses and associated off-site highway improvements. High quality design will be expected for these visually sensitive sites in line with the requirements of Policy DC1.

4.78 The redevelopment of the site is seen as a major driver for urban renaissance and change. Development will be mixed but will contain major commercial elements including employment, retail, tourism and leisure that will serve the needs of the area (paragraph 7.7).

4.79 Further paragraph 8.1.40 provides additional detail behind the proposed redevelopment of the site. It states:

“the Churnet Works area is an existing industrial site on the Macclesfield Road which is largely underused and presents a poor approach into the town. Its redevelopment presents a significant opportunity to regenerate an area of poor environmental quality and achieve a mix of uses and infrastructure improvements which will benefit this part of town.”

4.80 In addition to the site specific policies in relation to the application site, there are a number of general planning policies in relation to town centre and retailing, housing, employment, design and sustainable development.

Spatial Strategy

4.81 Policy SS1 expects development of land to contribute positively to the social, economic and environmental improvement of the area and lists a range of uses that should be delivered to meet this aim.

4.82 Policy SS2 sets out a provision of development for residential dwellings, stating that a minimum of 1,700 affordable housing units of the 6,000 to be completed, will be provided between 2006-2026.

4.83 Policy SS5a sets out the Leek Area Strategy in relation to housing, employment growth, retail, heritage and major regeneration mixed use opportunities (including

31

Churnet Works). Importantly, it identifies that the town will accommodate1,800 new dwellings between 2006 and 2026 of which 450 will be targeted as affordable, and that 7.2 hectares of employment land will be required over the same period. In relation to retailing, it identifies a need for an additional 3,000 sq m of convenience goods floorspace and 12,000 sq m of comparison goods floorspace of which 50% should be for bulky goods retailing.

4.84 The supporting text at Paragraph 8.1.30 states that the retail requirements are based on the capacity figures identified in the Retail Study (updates in 2008) and are indicative only of the amount of floorspace currently required in order to address identified quantitative and qualitative deficiencies in retail floorspace in Leek.

Sustainable Development

4.85 Policy SD1 gives preference to development on previously developed land in the most sustainable locations and will support proposals that remediate brownfield sites affected by contamination. Small and large scale renewable energy schemes will be supported and all new development as a minimum shall comply with the on site renewable energy targets set out in the national and regional guidance (West Midlands RSS Policy SR3). The policy states that all new development shall be designed to incorporate the best environmental practice, mitigating the effects of pollution.

Employment

4.86 New employment development shall contribute to maintaining and or enhancing an appropriate range of employment premises and sites across the district in terms of their scale location and type. Where redevelopment is proposed on existing employment sites for other uses, mixed use schemes will be promoted which should accommodate employment generating uses (Policy E1).

4.87 Redevelopment of existing employment areas for non-employment uses will not be permitted unless the site is allocated in the Site Allocations DPD, it can be demonstrated that the site would not be suitable or viable for continued employment use, or substantial planning benefits would be achieved through its redevelopment (Policy E2).

32

Housing

4.88 Policy H1 sets out the policy for new housing development which will be assessed according to the extent to which it provides for high quality, sustainable housing and to which it meets local market housing needs. Housing proposals over 10 dwellings will be required to provide a mix of size, type and tenure of dwellings. The development of housing on windfall sites above 9 dwellings will only be permitted where it provides overriding affordable housing, regeneration, conservation or infrastructure benefits. All new dwellings should be built to lifetime homes standards and meet the sustainable design and construction requirements set out in the RSS and Policy SD1.

4.89 Policy H2 sets out the affordable housing provision criteria, which states that in Leek, residential developments of 15 dwellings (0.5ha) or more shall provide a target of 40% affordable housing on-site. The actual provision will be determined through negotiation taking into account viability.

4.90 This is slightly at odds with Policy SS2 which seeks a target of 30% affordable provision.

Town Centre and Retailing Policies

4.91 Policy TCR1 sets out the policies to protect and enhance the vitality and viability of Leek town centre. New retail, leisure, office and key town centre uses outside town centres will only be permitted where they are consistent with the approach set out in PPS6 (now superseded by PPS4).

4.92 The council will indentify sites for significant retail provision in Leek to meet the local need identified in Policy SS5, with preference given to town and edge of centre sites. Sites outside the town centres in highly accessible locations will be identified where there are no edge or town centre sites (Policy TCR2).

Design and Conservation

4.93 All development shall be well designed to reinforce local distinctiveness by positively contributing to the special character and heritage of the area (Policy DC1).

4.94 Development will be resisted where it is harmful to the ‘interests of acknowledged importance’ including listed buildings and archaeological remains (Policy DC2).

33

4.95 The landscape and the setting of settlements will be protected and where possible enhanced (Policy DC3).

Sustainable Communities

4.96 The provision of high quality recreational open space and schemes that seek to protect and improve the quantity, quality and access to open space will be supported (Policy C2).

Natural Environment

4.97 Biodiversity and geological resources will be protected and enhanced by ensuring development where appropriate provides a net gain in biodiversity, and ensuring that any unavoidable impacts are appropriately mitigated for (Policy NE1).

Transport

4.98 Development which reduces the reliance on the private car will be promoted. New development will be located where the highway network can accommodate it, and where appropriate, facilitate walking and cycling within neighbourhoods and town centres linking with or extending identified walking or cycling routes (Policy T1).

Core Strategy Addendum

4.99 As a result of the responses made to the Submission draft Core Strategy and the further collation of evidence, SMDC has reviewed the broad locations for housing development in Leek, Biddulph and Cheadle. As these were considered significant changes to the plan, an Addendum was published for consultation between 7 December 2009 and 22 January 2010.

4.100 Of particular relevance to this application is modification number M22, that seeks to alter Paragraph 8.1.40, to amend the last three sentences of the policy to read as follows:

“Following concern over flood risk and safe access in this area, a site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been undertaken and the Environment Agency is now satisfied that, with suitable flood mitigation measures, an element of residential development can be accommodated within the site. As a consequence an estimated capacity of 100 dwellings has been allowed for on the Churnet Works site”.

34

Supplementary Planning Guidance / Documents

Staffordshire Moorlands Retail Study (November 2006)

4.101 GVA Grimley carried out a retail study to understand the positionto identify capacity across the three main town centres in the district. The report has been updated/supplemented with two further GVA Grimley Reports; Convenience Allocations Impact Analysis (February 2008); and Leek Comparison Retail Analysis (February 2008). The findings and analysis of these reports is set out further in Section 5 of this report.

Leek Town Centre Masterplan

4.102 The Town Centre Masterplan (TCM) was published in September 2009. The TCM undertook a property and physical analysis of Leek and identified a draft vision for the Town to be recognised as a destination Market Town with a broad appeal.

4.103 In order to deliver this vision, the TCM identified 15 opportunity sites which have been designated to accommodate a variety of potential town centre uses. Further consultation was undertaken during December 2009 on the ‘Draft Masterplan’ which now highlights the preferred uses for the opportunity sites identified in the original brief. These sites are given greater consideration as part of our sequential assessment (Section 5).

4.104 The Masterplan does not identify any sites that the Council believe are suitable for supermarket development or bulky goods retailing, within or on the edge of Leek town centre.

Public Open Space SPG (November 2004)

4.105 This document seeks to supplement open space policies R1 and R2 of the SMDC Local Plan and outlines how the provision and improvement of playing fields, children’s play areas, major open space and incidental open space can be achieved through Section 106 Agreements.

4.106 Leek was identified as having a shortfall in play areas and playing pitches but a surplus in Major Open Space. The document sets out the tariffs for contributions towards open space provision based on number and size (in terms of bedrooms) of residential units.

35

PPG17 Audit - Open Space, Sport and Recreation Audit (March 2008)

4.107 PMP carried out an assessment of open space, sport and recreation facilities across the District in accordance with PPG17. The assessment will form part of the evidence base for the Local Development Framework.

4.108 The study undertook an accurate audit of existing green space across Staffordshire Moorlands, identifying local needs and aspirations through consultation, a strategic review and a review of existing provision standards.

4.109 The key issues for Leek were identified as addressing quantitative and access deficiencies for natural and semi natural open space and to seek to enhance the quality of existing amenity green spaces. It was identified that there was a deficiency in the provision for young people in Leek and a priority is to be given to securing qualitative improvements to pitch provision in the immediate and long term. Recommendations to be addressed through the LDF include protection of all parks, natural areas, allotments and sports facilities and promotion of enhancements of natural and semi natural open space in terms of biodiversity as well as a recreational resource. The LDF should also facilitate the delivery of new play areas and facilities for young people and support the improvement and quality of outdoor sports facilities.

Developer/Landowner Contributions SPG (February 2005)

4.110 This document aims to assist developers in terms of what contributions are normally required in relation to service infrastructure. This includes a range of provisions as part of S106 agreements such as off-site highway works, public transport improvements, education contributions, affordable housing provision, public open space, nature conservation, recycling provision, public realm improvements, public art and community safety. The document sets out when these provisions are required and how much is required in relation to the size and use of development.

Policy Conclusions

4.111 It is evident from our review of relevant planning policy at the local level that the mixed-use redevelopment of the application site is promoted. As a result, subject to detailed development control matters being adequately addressed, the provision of the employment, residential, open space and infrastructure elements of the proposal should be supported.

36

4.112 In relation to the retail elements of the scheme it is important to recognise that the Core Strategy identifies a need for a new foodstore, comparison and bulky goods over the plan period within Leek and that no suitable sites have been identified within the town centre as part of the Leek Town Centre Masterplan exercise.

4.113 It is however recognised at the local and national level that the proposal to site retail development beyond the town centre requires careful consideration. In this regard, the recently published PPS4 sets out a number of key tests to establish the acceptability of the retail (and employment elements) of the proposal. Sections 5 and 6 assess the scheme against these considerations and the more detailed development control policies at the local level, outlining its appropriateness.

37

5. Retail Analysis

5.1 It is evident from our analysis of the relevant planning policy position (Section 4), that in order for the retail elements of the application proposals to be considered acceptable they must accord with national, regional and local policy requirements.

5.2 In this respect, the recently published PPS4 sets out the Governments thinking on how retail proposals should be considered. PPS4 requires applicants (under Policy EC17) to demonstrate compliance with the sequential approach to site selection (Policy EC15) and that proposals would not lead to significant adverse impacts (Policies EC10 and EC16). Where no significant adverse impacts have been identified, planning applications should be determined by taking account of the positive and negative impacts of the proposal and any other material considerations.

5.3 Before considering the merits of the application proposals against the PPS4 tests it is relevant to consider the wider context of retailing within Leek and the Council commissioned work that has been undertaken to inform the emerging Core Strategy and the identification within that document of a need for additional convenience and comparison (bulky and non-bulky) within Leek. This is provided by two reports prepared by GVA Grimley on behalf of the Council, which are summarised below.

Staffordshire Moorlands District Retail Study (November 2006)

5.4 The District Retail Study (November 2006) considered the scope for new retail floorspace within the District in the period from 2006 to 2008, 2013, 2016 and 2021.

5.5 The Study was based on a review of how each of the Districts’ centres were performing relative to each other but importantly other centres of a similar size and nature, the results of a household telephone survey and in centre (on the street) surveys to fully understand shoppers perceptions of the centres and their shopping habits. In relation to Leek, the Study made a number of important findings:

• Leek does not command a market share that is reflective of its role as the principal centre within the District and the sub-regional retail hierarchy;

• whilst the town centre is healthy and very attractive it is considered deficient in a number of respects and as a consequence, significant amounts of expenditure and trade is being lost to competing centres;

38

• in order to keep pace with and close the gap on competing centres Leek needs to improve its retail offer and in this respect it is important that development of both convenience and comparison (bulky and non-bulky) are supported;

• only Morrisons provides a fully functioning food store offer and there is scope for the town to support a medium to large, high order foodstore, comparable to that found within competing towns in order to be able to effectively compete and provide additional choice for the consumer; and

• there is an identifiable need to develop new comparison goods retail facilities or provide additional floorspace to comprise larger unit sizes.

5.6 The Study assumes two scenarios, a constant market share approach and the scope for a change in market share, the later being considered the most useful in proactively planning for new retail provision within Leek. The Study acknowledges that the three centres within Staffordshire Moorlands are to varying degrees under-performing in retail terms. In particular, Leek is identified as performing inadequately relative to its position within the sub-regional retail network with the survey results showing significant levels of leakage (to other centres) and wide dissatisfaction expressed within the attitudinal shopper surveys. It concludes that the town has significant weaknesses in its retail offer, in particular into the quality and quantity of its comparison (bulky and non-bulky) floorspace.

5.7 As a result, the Study concludes that there is scope for qualitative and market share derived quantitative improvement across the three towns in the District. The shortcomings of the existing offer manifest themselves in significant leakage of expenditure from the District out to adjacent centres. It is not unreasonable therefore to expect some reduction in current levels of leakage through the improvement in the retail offer of the individual towns. This in turn would ensure that the respective centres better fulfil their expected role within the retail hierarchy and deliver services on a more sustainable basis. The potential reduction in levels of leakage in effect translates into increases in market share, which in turn generates quantitative capacity for new floorspace.

5.8 Market share increases will only be realised if the proposals that come forward add qualitatively to the retail offer of the town, thereby strengthening its attractiveness. We believe the current application proposals are sufficiently scaled and will offer a substantial qualitative enhancement to the attractiveness of Leek as a retail location to facilitate increases in market share. We consider this in greater detail along with a more detailed analysis of the findings of the Study later in this Section.

39

Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Impact Assessment of Potential Additional Convenience Retail Floorspace in Leek and Cheadle (February 2008)

5.9 Following on from the District Retail Study and in order to inform the Council’s emerging Core Strategy GVA Grimley were instructed to assess the potential impact of new foodstore development in Leek and Cheadle. The report should be read in conjunction with the District Retail Study (November 2006), rather than as a standalone document.

5.10 The report assessed the likely trading implications of a 3,000 sq m gross foodstore in Leek using the main food shopping patterns identified in the household telephone survey. Whilst the detailed results of the analysis are considered in the later in this Section (under impact), it is worth noting that whilst there will inevitably be a redistribution of expenditure within the town from existing foodstores, it is considered that the provision of a new higher order foodstore will derive significant positive benefits to the town centre by attracting additional shoppers from outside Leek’s immediate catchement who presently look towards larger foodstores outside of the district to meet their main food shopping needs.

5.11 As a result, the report recommends that the Council actively plans for new foodstore development in Leek.

5.12 Within this background context we now assess the application proposals against the sequential and impact tests set out in PPS4.

Sequential Assessment

5.13 Policy EC14.3 of PPS4 requires that a sequential assessment (under Policy EC15) is required for planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up to date development plan.

5.14 In this regard, it should be recognised that application site is identified in the Submission Draft Core Strategy as a Major Regeneration Opportunity Site wherein retail is considered an appropriate use. Its location as a retail destination therefore has emerging policy support. Notwithstanding this position we have undertaken a thorough sequential assessment.

5.15 The sequential approach itself is set out at Policy EC5.2 of PPS4. For clarity it requires first preference to be given to town centre sites where appropriate sites are available or are likely to become available within the plan period, followed by edge-of-centre locations that are or will be well connected to the centre and then

40

out-of-centre sites accessible by a choice of means of transport and which are closest to the centre and have a higher likelihood of forming links with the centre.

5.16 In assessing potential sites, regard should be had to their suitability, availability and viability (Policies EC5.2 and EC15.1) and developers should demonstrate flexibility in terms of scale of the floorspace proposed, the format of the proposals, reducing the level of car parking provision and the scope for disaggregating specific parts of a retail or leisure development.

5.17 In terms of the area of search, given the emerging Core Strategy and the findings of the GVA Grimley Retail Study, we believe the relevant centres of search can be limited to Leek town centre. Locating the development outside of Leek in a competing centre or location would not deliver the quantitative and qualitative benefits to the retail shopping offer of the town and would not meet the identified requirement for enhanced shopping facilities within Leek identified in both documents.

5.18 In undertaking our assessment, we have had regard to the emerging Leek Town Centre Masterplan that identifies a number of potential development opportunities within and adjacent to the town centre. It should be noted from the outset that the document does not identify any sites believed to be capable of accommodating a foodstore or retail warehouse use.

5.19 Our assessment is set out below.

Assessment

5.20 Reflecting Government guidance, in carrying out our sequential approach we have sought to ensure a maximum level of flexibility in terms of scale, floorspace and parking provision. We have also had reference to the constraints of the type of store that Sainsbury’s could expect to operate, given its business model and the need identified at the store.

5.21 In terms of the scope for disaggregation we have considered the opportunity to split the foodstore and retail warehouse elements of the proposal albeit each would require their own access and car parking provision. In reality this would lead to an inefficient use of land as the current proposal offers the benefit of shared car parking facilities which minimises land take.

5.22 In carrying out the sequential approach, applicants should provide clear evidence as to why sequentially preferable sites are not appropriate for the proposed development based on the availability, suitability and viability tests.

41

5.23 To demonstrate this, we have assessed the ability of those sites within the emerging Masterplan to accommodate the proposal.

5.24 We have assessed sites in the following sequence:

• California Mill Area;

• Former British Trimmings Site;

• Easton House and Surrounding Areas;

• Portland Street Mill Area;

• London Mill/York Mill Area;

• War Memorial Area including The Talbot and White Lion;

• Smithfield Centre and Bus Station;

• Compton Mill Area;

• Pickwood Road Area;

• Former Broad Street Garage Site;

• Land to the rear of St Edward Street;

• High Street Car Park Area;

• Market Street West Car Park Area;

• Foxlowe Site; and

• Premier Garage

5.25 Our detailed assessment of the above sites is contained in Appendix 6. We have not identified any sites within Local Centres appropriate for the proposed development.

5.26 In addition, we understand that Tesco has submitted a planning application on the Eaton House/Adams Foods site for the provision of a retail food store (2,959 sq m net), offices and petrol filling station. At the time of writing the application has not been registered and we have not therefore been able to review any of the supporting documentation. However, we do not believe that the site represents a sequentially preferable alternative to Churnet Works.

42

5.27 The site is considered an out-of-centre location and whilst it is geographically closer to Leek town centre, it cannot be considered to have a higher likelihood of forming links with the centre than Churnet Works. In addition, there are a number of issues relating to the site which require careful consideration to fully understand whether the site is available (given the split ownership position) and suitable (given the site specific constraints relating to the location, existing uses on site and the adopted and emerging planning policy position). Given these constraints, we do not believe that the site can be considered available or suitable for a foodstore or retail warehouse development. As a result it has been discounted from our assessment.

5.28 On this basis, our sequential assessment concludes that there are no opportunities within or on the edge of Leek town centre, which would be suitable or available for the identified need.

5.29 We therefore conclude that the application site represents the most sequentially preferable location to accommodate the proposed development. Whilst it represents an out-of-centre location the lack of appropriate town centre and edge of centre sites and its good accessibility (that will be further enhanced by additional bus provision) make it the appropriate location for the proposed development.

Impact Assessment

5.30 Having established that the application site complies with the sequential approach to site selection, the next step is to assess the likely impact effects of the proposal against the criteria detailed in Policies EC10.2 and EC16.1 of PPS4.

5.31 We set these out below, detailing the requirements of EC16.1 first and then EC10.2. In assessing the likely impact effects we have had regard to the advice contained in Planning For Town Centre – Practice guidance on need, impact and the sequential approach.

Impact on Existing, Committed and Planned Public and Private Investment in the Centre

5.32 The proposal would not put at risk the spatial planning strategy for the area and would not impact upon the Council’s strategy for the enhancement of Leek as a retail centre. The proposal would not duplicate or put at risk any of the town centre development opportunities identified within the emerging Leek Town Centre Masterplan which seek a different types, scale and content of development.

43

5.33 Indeed, we believe that the provision of the application proposals would have a substantial beneficial effect on Leek as a retail location. It would provide a focus for main food convenience retailing and bulky goods retailing within the town that is currently lacking and will retain expenditure on those goods categories within the town. With the enhancements to the proposed linkage with the town centre proposed as part of the scheme, the prospects of shoppers undertaking linked shopping trips with the centre will be enhanced.

5.34 The proposals seek to complement rather than duplicate the retail offer of the town centre. Retention of expenditure currently being spent elsewhere, good linkages and increasing numbers of shoppers will assist Leek in re-establishing itself as a retail location within the defined hierarchy of centres and will assist in the delivery of the key elements of the town centre masterplan.

5.35 The application proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in Leek or other centres within the catchment area of the proposal.

Impact on Town Centre Vitality and Viability, including Local Consumer Choice and Range and Quality of the Comparison and Convenience Retail Offer

5.36 The economic assessment of the likely impact effects of the proposal on the trading position of Leek town centre is set out later in this Section. This is directly linked to the impact of the proposals on the town centre vitality and viability. We conclude that the proposals would not have a significant adverse impact on the town centre trading position and Leek would therefore remain a vital and viable town centre (as identified in the GVA retail reports).

5.37 In relation to the other elements of the assessment criteria, these would normally be considered elements of qualitative need for new retail facilities. These are usually identified by a number of different factors including retailer demand, addressing deficiencies in existing retail offer (quality), consumer choice and expectations.

5.38 We set out below an overview of the main qualitative factors for each individual retail element of the scheme. It should however be recognised that when considered as a whole, the scheme will offer a significant improvement in the range of retail facilities within the town, will enhance customer choice and will provide floorspace that is currently under provided in Leek. This will enhance the

44

attractiveness of the town as a retail location, stem expenditure leakage and encourage shoppers to meet their shopping needs within the town.

Convenience Goods

5.39 The Retail Study identifies that there is considerable convenience goods expenditure leakage from the town to competing centres and stores. The low market share levels can be attributed to the weakness of Leek as a convenience goods location in qualitative terms and the relative strength of provision within competing centres/locations.

5.40 Whilst the town has a number of convenience retailers the provision does not cover all sectors of the market with an emphasis on the discount/lower order ranges. Whilst the Morrison’s store is considered to be significantly overtrading the higher order and larger stores such as Tesco Meir, Asda Tunstall and Morrison’s at Festival Park current attract 40% of main food shopping expenditure from the Leek South area. The Retail Study therefore recommends that the introduction of a high order convenience operator within the town such as Sainsbury’s, Tesco or Asda would alleviate the over trading in Morrison’s and provide an attractive alternative for residents to meet their shopping needs within the town. The quality of the retailer is particularly important to increase Leek’s market share and stem expenditure outflow.

5.41 A store of the size proposed is required to provide this offer to the residents of Leek and to challenge the shopping patterns and preferences of those who shop outside of Leek. At present the availability of better more modern facilities outside of Leek threatens the ongoing vitality and viability of the centre and sustainable principles, with shoppers having to travel longer distances by car to undertake their main food shopping.

5.42 The provision of a modern facility, of the standard demanded by customers, will reduce the need to travel and stem outflow. It will enhance customer choice, encourage competition and alleviate existing overtrading in the Morrison’s store (post extension).

Comparison Goods

5.43 Multipurpose convenience/comparison retailing within Leek is currently limited to the Morrison’s store. Whilst the Morrison’s is proposed to be extended, it will not offer a full food and ancillary comparison goods offer.

45

5.44 The proposed Sainsbury’s store seeks to provide a main convenience shopping destination albeit, it will contain provide an element (circa 25%) of comparison goods floorspace. It is anticipated that the store will sell limited ranges of the following goods; books, card and stationary; CD’s and DVD’s; Toys; homeware including textile, home accessories and cooking utensils; electricals; seasonal products, and clothing.

5.45 Comparison goods sales tend to be ‘impulsive’ where a shopper will not necessarily have intended to purchase a particular good, but has been reminded of it during the course of the shopping visit. People shopping specifically for comparison goods are unlikely to visit Sainsbury’s, instead preferring to shop at more traditional retailers and/or in centres, where there is a greater variety and choice. It does not follow that ‘impulsive’ expenditure at Sainsbury’s on comparison goods would have otherwise been spent in other shops in retail centres, if at all.

5.46 A comparison goods element is necessary if the store is to compete with other stores/centres identified in the Retail Study as being attractive to shoppers from Leek. The larger store identified beyond Leek all provide a range of comparison goods and if the Sainsbury’s proposal is to change shopper patterns, increase customer choice and actively compete with these facilities it needs to be of a similar scale and quality.

Bulky Goods

5.47 The Retail Study identifies that Leek currently has a relatively low market share of bulky goods expenditure and with the exception of the Focus DIY unit and Halfords there is little if any provision within this retail sector. The main concentrations of national bulky goods retailers to larger centres and Festival Park, draws significant expenditure away from Leek.

5.48 The proposal will provide bulky goods floorspace and would not therefore compete directly with the existing (comparison based) town centre. The types of goods sold will be limited by an agreed condition to limited the sale of certain goods. The application proposal will provide three large scale modern units that will be attractive to national bulky goods retailers not currently represented in Leek. By attracting new, high quality retailers to the town, the retail attraction of the town as a retail location must be increased.

5.49 Their provision would meet the acknowledged quantitative need for this type of retailing, will enhance customer choice and will act as competition for competing stores and trading locations beyond Leek.

46

5.50 On the basis of the above it is evident that the application proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer of Leek.

The Impact of the Proposal on Allocated Sites Outside Town Centres Being Developed in Accordance with the Development Plan

5.51 The application proposals would have no impact effect under this criterion. The adopted Local Plan does not identify any development sites in out of centre locations that would be affected by the application proposals.

5.52 Further the emerging Core Strategy specifically identifies the application site as a Major Regeneration Opportunity Site for the type of uses being proposed. The proposals would therefore have a positive impact on the delivery of the emerging allocation in the Core Strategy.

5.53 The application proposal would not therefore have a significant adverse impact on allocated sites being developed in accordance with the development plan.

Impact on In-Centre Trade Taking Account of Current and Future Consumer Expenditure Capacity

5.54 In undertaking our assessment of the impact of the proposals under this criterion, we have had regard to the ‘need’ for the additional retail floorspace proposed and the likely trade diversion effects. The results of our analysis are set out below.

5.55 The requirement to demonstrate retail need in relation to applications for new retail development is no longer a requirement of PPS4. However, it does provide an indicator of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the context of retail proposals.

Quantitative Assessment

5.56 Our retail assessment considers the need for both the convenience and comparison goods to be sold from the proposed supermarket as well as the need for the bulky good retail warehouse floorspace proposed. The purpose of the retail elements of the proposals is to seek to provide a main convenience and bulky goods shopping destination to encourage the resident population (and the wider hinterland) to shop locally and to act as a complementary retail offer to the largely

47

comparison based town centre. The breakdown of the proposed retail floorspace is set out in table 5.1.

Table 5.1 – Retail Floorspace Breakdown

Retail Element Gross Floor Area (Sq m)

Net Sales Area (Sq m)

Sainsbury’s Store

Convenience

Comparison

6,834 3,716

(2,772)

(944)

Bulky Goods Retail Warehousing

2,875 2,300

Total 9,709 6,016

Retail Capacity

5.57 The District Retail Study provides an assessment of the anticipated convenience, comparison and bulky goods capacity within the District over the years 2008, 2013, 2016 and 2021. Whilst we examine the findings of the Study below, it should be noted from the outset that we do not agree with one of the main assumptions within the assessment; namely, it assumes that the retail system and retail facilities are trading at equilibrium in 2006 despite the fact that the results of the household survey establish that a number of the retail facilities are trading at above benchmark levels in 2006. The effect this assumption has to the reduce the level of identified quantitative capacity and to protect the trading position of existing stores from additional competition. For example, the Study established that the out-of-centre Morrison’s store within Leek currently trades at £8.8m above its national company average level. To our mind, this demonstrates that there is capacity for additional retail floorspace within Leek immediately and there is no policy justification for protecting this store and allowing it to continue to trade at above company average levels. We believe that this level of expenditure should in theory be available to support additional retail floorspace within Leek. We highlight the implications of this later in this Section.

48

Convenience Goods Assessment

5.58 In undertaking our assessment of need for the convenience goods floorpsace proposed, we have, based our assessment on the GVA Grimley District Retail Study which was carried out for the emerging Core Strategy.

5.59 In order that the analysis is directly comparable we have not updated the population and expenditure estimates nor made any adjustment to the results of the household shopper survey. Our analysis is contained within the Tables at Appendix 4.

Population and Expenditure

5.60 We have assumed the population and expenditure figures detailed within the GVA Study. Table 1 at Appendix 4 therefore replicates Table 3 of their capacity assessment.

Average Turnover Levels

5.61 The next step is to calculate the turnover of existing convenience goods floorspace within Leek. Table 2 of Appendix 4 contains a list if the existing facilities within the centre and freestanding facilities and their estimated turnover.

5.62 We have updated the turnover for individual retailers using Verdict 2009 and converted to 2003 Prices to accord with the GVA Study. It is important to note that we have assumed that all of the anticipated turnover of the facilities is generated from within the study area. In reality there is likely to be some inflow. The assessment therefore represents a robust analysis.

5.63 Table 3 of Appendix 4 details the permitted Morrison’s extension proposals and draws upon the Retail and Planning Statement prepared by Peacock & Smith (April 2009) submitted in support of that application.

Existing Patterns of Trade

5.64 Having calculated the average expected turnover levels of the retail facilities with Leek, it is necessary to understand the actual trading conditions of each store and town centre facilities. This is shown in Table 7 of the GVA capacity analysis and is based on the results of the household shopper study used to underpin their assessment.

49

5.65 It indicates that the Morrison’s store is overtrading when compared to benchmark levels by £8.8m and the Aldi and Co-op stores in Leek are also performing well. This provides a clear indicator that there is a lack of quality convenience goods facilities within the study area and by association a clear need for additional floorspace.

Identifying Capacity

5.66 Having established the ‘actual’ turnover levels of existing convenience facilities within Leek it is possible to calculate its market share i.e. the level of expenditure generated in the Study area that is being retained/spent in facilities within Leek. This is shown in row 4 of Table 5 at Appendix 4.

5.67 Based on the results of the household shopper survey, it is estimated that only 29% of the total available convenience goods expenditure is spent within Leek with the other 71% being lost to larger stores and centres elsewhere or through special forms of trading, such as the internet. This level of leakage is considered to be well above what would be considered acceptable but is a result of a lack of quality provision within Leek. Mechanisms to reduce this level of outflow should be supported.

5.68 The next step is to calculate the capacity of Leek to support new convenience goods floorspace. In this regard, Table 5 of Appendix 3 includes an allowance for the maintenance an improvement of the town centre facilities. In this respect, forecast growth in convenience goods expenditure is allocated to existing town centre facilities at 0.15% per annum. This is generally accepted as a robust basis for allocating expenditure growth. This is shown in row 5 of Table 5 of Appendix 3.

5.69 It is evident from the results of the household shopper survey that Leek is failing to meet the convenience requirements of its catchment. There is a clear weakness in its retail offer, in particular the quality and quantity of its convenience goods offer.

5.70 GVA therefore believe that there is scope for qualitative and market share derived quantitative improvement within the Leek catchment. The shortcomings in the existing offer manifest itself in the significant overtrading of the Morrison’s store and the significant level of leakage to other stores and centres beyond the catchment area. Whilst some degree of leakage is inevitable, it would not be unreasonable to expect some reduction in current levels of leakage through the substantial improvement of the retail offer. This would ensure that Leek better fulfils its expected role within the retail hierarchy and an improvement to services are delivered on a more sustainable basis.

50

5.71 The potential reduction in the levels of leakage in effect translates into increases in market share, which in turn generates quantitative capacity for new floorspace.

5.72 GVA in their Retail Study make the assumption that a circa 10% increase in market share (to 40%) is reasonable. The effects of this increase are show in Table 5 at Appendix 4. This generates capacity of £22.20m at 2013 (taking into account the Morrison’s extension) rising to £23.41m in 2016 and the £25.76m in 2021. These findings compare favourably to the anticipated convenience goods turnover of the proposed Sainsbury’s store of £22.57m (2003 prices), it is evident that the proposed increase in floorspace is supportable.

5.73 However, we believe that the application proposal will provide a substantial qualitative improvement in the shopping offer of Leek to the extent it has the ability to enhance the market share retention rates further. We have therefore undertaken a further assessment that assumes an increase in market share to 45%. We believe such a level is appropriate for a sub-regional centre and will provide substantial benefits to the wider shopping offer of the centre. Table 6 at Appendix 4 demonstrates the effect this relatively minor increase in market share has on the available convenience goods capacity in Leek. It generates capacity of £29.59m at 2013 (taking into account the Morrison’s extension) rising to £30.23m in 2016 and the £31.29m in 2021. This is sufficient to sustain all of the proposed Sainsbury’s store turnover (£25.08m) at 2013.

5.74 In our judgement, a clear quantitative need exists within the Leek for the application proposal.

Comparison Goods Assessment

5.75 The Retail Study identifies that Leek retains a relatively low level of comparison goods expenditure which highlights the qualitative deficiencies in Leeks comparison goods offer. The perceived deficiency is also highlighted in the in-centre, qualitative survey responses.

5.76 In numerical terms, Leek town centre only commands a 30% market share of comparison goods expenditure arising from its primary catchment area (Leek zone) and this decreased to 11% from both Leek South and also Leek North, and 5% from Cheadle’s outer catchment zone.

5.77 The GVA Study models increases the market share from the Leek catchment to 50% whilst the Leek South and Leek North catchment areas have been increased to 30% and 20% respectively. Application of these market share increase

51

generates significant forward capacity for circa 7,154 sq m (gross) of comparison goods floorspace in 2008, rising to 8,409 sq m in 2013 and 9,204 sq m in 2016.

5.78 We are not aware of any new major comparison goods facilities being brought forward within Leek since the publication of the Retail Study and as such, the findings remain valid. However, we are aware that the Council is progressing the Leek Town Centre Masterplan. Whilst the document is at a very early stage in its production and is likely to be subject to change as it progresses through the consultation process, it does provide some guidance on the potential of the town centre to accommodate the anticipated growth in comparison goods floorspace. We review below those site identified as being suitable for additional retail floorspace and the indicative levels of floorspace identified for each site.

Table 5.2 – Town Centre Masterplan Sites

Site Floorspace Range (sq m gross)

Short Term

(7) Smithfield Centre and Bus Station

(10) Former Broad Street Garage Site

1,858 sq m

464 sq m

Short Term Floorspace 2,322 sq m gross

Medium/Long Term

(8) Compton Mill Area

(9) Pickwood Road Area

1,208 sq m – 1,580 sq m

1,950 sq m – 3,716 sq m

Medium/Long Term 3,158 – 5,296 sq m

Total Potential Floorspace 5,480 – 7, 618 sq m

5.79 Table 5.2 demonstrates that in the short term i.e. to 2013 the Masterplan envisages that only sites 7 & 10 will come forward for retail development. We have assumed for the purposes of this exercise that all floorspace will be comparison

52

goods floorspace (albeit in reality it is likely to be a mix of A1 –A5 uses). This will provide a total of 2,322 sq m gross against an identified quantitative need for 8,409 in 2013. It is clear therefore that the proposed comparison goods element of the Sainsbury’s store (944 sq m) can be comfortably accommodated within the identified capacity levels at 2013.

5.80 Looking further forward, the Council anticipate that the larger town centre sites will come forward (Sites 8 & 9) to provide additional retailing. Even in this scenario and assuming that the maximum levels of comparison goods floorspace are delivered (7,618 sq m gross) by 2016, the additional comparison goods element of the Sainsbury’s store (944 sq m) can be comfortably accommodated within the identified capacity levels at 2016 (9,204 sq m).

5.81 We therefore conclude that there is a clear and demonstrable quantitative need for the additional comparison goods floorspace proposed as part of the application scheme.

Bulky Goods Assessment

5.82 The Retail Study concludes that Leek performs relatively well in retaining expenditure on bulky goods within the District, particularly given the significant competition from the Stoke conurbation and Festival Park in particular. Presently, Leek commands a market share of circa 35% from its primary catchment area and circa 11% and 12% from the secondary catchment areas (Leek South and North). The GVA Study models increases the market share from the Leek catchment to 55% whilst the Leek South and Leek North catchment areas have been increased to 22.5% and 15% respectively. Application of these market share increase generates significant forward capacity for 5,318 sq m (gross) of bulky goods floorspace in 2008, rising to 6,455 sq m in 2013 and 7,186 sq m in 2016.

5.83 We are not aware of any new bulky goods facilities that have come forward following the publication of the Retail Study and the findings therefore remain valid and demonstrate that there is sufficient quantitative capacity to justify the 2,875 sq m gross proposed as part of the application scheme under all timeframe scenarios.

Economic Assessment

5.84 In assessing the retail impact of the proposed development on existing centres and facilities, the Council commissioned GVA Grimley to undertake an assessment of the likely impact of the potential additional convenience retail floorspace in Leek and Cheadle. The report was published in February 2008.

53

5.85 The document is important as it establishes a baseline position against which to assess the likely impact effects of the proposal. The Study was based on a new medium sized foodstore of c. 3,000 sq m gross coming forward in Leek and a smaller 2,000 sq m gross foodstore coming forward in Cheadle.

5.86 Our assessment updates the GVA analysis to take account of the current proposal but retains the key assumptions and analysis.

5.87 It should be recognised that our analysis is set against the existence of a clear quantitative capacity for the floorspace proposed and as a result it is unlikely that its impact would adversely affect the trading vitality and viability of any nearby established centres.

Turnover of Proposed Store

5.88 We calculated that the convenience goods turnover of the store is estimated at £25.08 million (in 2003 prices) based on company average levels and similar sized stores operated by Sainsbury’s.

5.89 The turnover of the proposed store is expected to be predominantly derived (90%) from shoppers within the Leek catchment area. In this context £22.57m (2003 prices) of turnover will be derived from within the defined catchment area.

Economic Impact Assessment

5.90 The first step in assessing the estimated trading effects of the proposed new store is to establish the current ‘actual’ estimates trading patterns of convenience shopping facilities within the catchment area. This is provided within the GVA Retail Study (February 2008) but is shown for completeness in Table 1 of Appendix 5.

5.91 The second stage of the process is to establish the current convenience trading patterns within the catchment area at the base and design years. This is provided by the GVA Study from the results of the household survey. In this regard, the results of the survey have been used systematically to build up the turnovers of the stores within Leek from the catchment. Again, the results of the analysis are shown in Table 1 of Appendix 5.

5.92 The results of the application of the household shopper survey show that the Morrison’s store is significantly overtrading in comparison to its company average turnover, the Aldi in Leek is trading at around company average levels and the Co-op in Leek is trading at below average levels. The GVA Study also identifies that

54

there is significant leakage of expenditure to larger facilities and centres beyond Leek.

5.93 Having established the trading position of all the Leek area stores, the next step in the assessment is to calculate the level of diversion from existing convenience goods facilities to the new Sainsbury’s at Biddulph. This is shown in Table 1 of Appendix 5 and has been extracted from Table 3 of the GVA Retail Impact Assessment adjusted to accord with the lower anticipated turnover of the new Sainsbury’s store (£21m).

5.94 The next step is to calculate the turnover of the proposed store which we calculate will have a total convenience goods turnover of £25.08m. This is in excess of that envisaged by the GVA Study which considered a smaller store (£21m).

5.95 The level of trade diversion is calculated on the basis of the GVA assessment by providing a pro-rata increase. In essence the diversions are based on the distance from competing facilities, the size and anticipated function of the proposal, ease of access, existing known shopping patterns and overlap in goods sold.

5.96 Moreover, the trade draw assessment reflects the fact that the store will not compete significantly with smaller convenience retailers, as the store will occupy a largely different sector of the food retail market; i.e. meeting main shopping needs. It is the intention that the Proposed Development will compete directly with other large foodstores in order to reverse substantial leakage of expenditure that is currently taking place.

5.97 Given that the Sainsbury’s store is likely to attract predominantly bulk food shopping rather than ‘top up’ trade, the majority of turnover diverted from existing stores will be main food expenditure. On this basis, Sainsbury’s will draw proportionately more trade (in monetary terms) from the larger competing out-of-centre stores including; the Morrison’s within Leek (£5.87m), the Co-op in Leek (£1.43m), Asda in Tunstall (£1.23m), the Morrison’s at Festival Park (£1.85m), and the Sainsbury’s stores in Stoke-on-Trent (£1.27m), Biddulph (£1.13m) and Macclesfield (£0.96m).

5.98 Table 1 of Appendix 5 shows the level of trade diversion from existing stores to the proposed Sainsbury’s store. Resulting turnover levels of stores can be compared with published company average figures as a means of assessing whether the impact is likely to be harmful. As noted previously, the Sainsbury’s store is likely to compete more directly with the large out-of-centre facilities and these stores are unlikely to experience a discernible change in their trading position.

55

5.99 In Leek town centre, the loss of trade from the existing retail facilities (including the Aldi) will to be relatively low (£0.50m) as these facilities will continue to serve a specialist or top up function. As a result we do not believe that the level of impact incurred would threaten closure of any stores.

5.100 GVA undertake a similar exercise for the anticipated growth in comparison goods in their Leek LDF Comparison Retail Allocations – February 2008. The unrestricted comparison element of the Sainsbury’s stores sits comfortably within the range of new comparison goods floorspace envisaged by GVA and any impact effects must be considered within acceptable limits (see Table 1 of GVA document). In reality the comparison element of the Sainsbury’s store is likely to compete more directly with existing large stores rather than town centre retailers. As a result, any impact effects will be considerably diffused.

5.101 In relation to the bulky goods element of the proposal, it is accepted by GVA that there is little if any provision within Leek. As a result, there will be little or no trade diversion from town centre retailers as the proposal will compete directly with the larger retail warehouse parks in the surrounding area such a Festival Park.

5.102 We understand that there may be some concern in relation to the nature of the retail warehouse element of the scheme and its ability to change over time to compete with the town centre. In order to protect against this, we invite the LPA to impose conditions on the goods that can be sold from the units and that they cannot be sub-divided to provide smaller units. The suggested wording of both conditions is set out below.

The three non-food retail units shall only be used for the sale of non-food bulky goods comprising DIY and/or garden tools, furniture, carpets, motor vehicles and/or cycle goods, electrical goods including computers, and pet supplies.

All of the non-food retail units shall have a minimum gross floorspace of 850 sq m.

5.103 It is evident that Leek town centre would not experience any material impact on its overall trading vitality and viability.

Linked Trips and Spin-off Benefits

5.104 Aside from the effects of trade diversion, we have not sought to quantify the additional positive effects of the retail floorspace on Leek town centre as a retail location. These should however be recognised.

56

5.105 The position of the new Sainsbury's store and bulky goods retailing within the site and the improvements to linkage between it and the remainder of the centre has been devised in order to maximise linked trips between the two. This will be further assisted by the car parking and the new bus provision. This will result in a development that acts as an extension to the existing town centre offer. The car park will be operated as a town centre facility and the bus links will allow the proposal to act as a quasi park and ride facility with frequent links to the centre.

5.106 We therefore conclude that the application proposals will:

• attract shoppers away from existing out-of-centre facilities to a more appropriate town centre location;

• encourage shoppers to undertake linked trips between the new store and the town centre;

• increase patronage of the centre and increase turnover of centre facilities as a result (i.e. deliver spin off benefits from the foodstore and direct benefits from the units shops); and

• enhance the trading position of the centre as a whole.

5.107 We therefore believe that the proposals will not have a significant adverse impact on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area, taking account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area.

Whether the Proposal is of an Appropriate Scale in Relation to the Size and Role of the Centre

5.108 PPS4 indicates that the scale of the proposal is only considered relevant if it is located in or on the edge of a town centre. However, for completeness we have undertaken an assessment of whether the scale of the proposal is commensurate with the size of Leek town centre and its role within the hierarchy of centres.

5.109 Relevant considerations include whether the proposals could be accommodated on a more central site (i.e. the sequential approach), whether the proposal would be accessible to alternative means of transport (accessibility) and where the case relies on a increase in market share (as in this case) whether they will have an adverse effect on planned investment or the trade/turnover of nearby centres.

5.110 Equally, in reaching a balanced judgement it may be relevant to consider the positive effects of the proposal such as employment, infrastructure or physical

57

regeneration benefits of a scheme. We consider these areas in the following sections but set out a summary position in the table below.

Table 5.3 – Appropriateness of Scale

Scale Measure Consideration of Proposal

Sequential Approach There are no sequentially preferable sites to accommodate the development – see paragraphs 5.13 -5.29.

Accessibility The site is accessible by a choice of transports modes and will benefits from additional improvements proposed as part of the scheme.

Impact No unacceptable impacts on planned investment or the trade of nearby centres – see paragraphs 5.32-5.107.

Employment Creation of 300-350 new jobs in foodstore/pfs and 150 for the non-food retail employment.

Infrastructure/physical regeneration

Delivers regeneration of run down poor quality brownfield site and will deliver substantial improvements to the infrastructure within and surrounding the site.

5.111 It is evident from the above, that the proposed development performs well against all of the criteria identified in the emerging guidance on appropriateness of scale.

5.112 In addition, we believe that there are a number of further factors to indicate that the scale of the proposed development is appropriate to Leek.

5.113 In addition, we have demonstrated in the preceding paragraphs that there is a retail need for the level of new floorspace proposed. As the proposal has been tailored to meet the identified need within the Leek catchment it must be considered an appropriate scale.

5.114 It is evident that substantial amounts of retail expenditure is leaking from Leek due to the lack of high quality main food and bulky goods shopping facilities within the town and the proliferation of large scale out-of-centre facilities in neighbouring

58

locations. It is evident from the Retail Study that residents of Leek and the wider area are travelling to these larger stores to undertake their main food/bulky goods shopping. This is not only unsustainable but also means that a large amount of expenditure is leaking out of the Leek area.

5.115 The provision of a smaller foodstore as part of this scheme would not meet the identified need nor would it provide a comparable main food shopping location. The application proposal seeks the provision of a facility that will offer a range of convenience/comparison goods that will directly compete with the larger facilities in neighbouring locations (such as Macclesfield, Tunstall, Meir and Festival Park). This will have the benefit of reducing the need to travel as well as retaining large amounts of expenditure within the local area. The provision of a foodstore in this location also has the potential to offer wider benefits to the remainder of Leek in terms of linked trips and spin off benefits.

5.116 Churnet Works is rundown, provides a poor environment and has been in terminal decline for a number of years. It is identified as a Major Regeneration Opportunity Site in the emerging Core Strategy for a mixed use scheme (as currently proposed). The site does however have a number of development issues that require substantial financial investment in order that redevelopment can occur.

5.117 The application proposal will deliver the comprehensive redevelopment of the site and will provide a number of wider community benefits (in addition to the new retail provision). These include the new purpose built employment floorspace to relocate existing occupiers and attract new businesses, residential accommodation to meet the housing needs of the district and enhanced open space provision to the benefit of the wider residential population.

5.118 The retail element of this proposal generates the value to provide these significant regeneration benefits. Without this substantial investment, these benefits would not come forward and a major opportunity would be lost.

5.119 It is evident from the above analysis that the proposed development performs well against all the indicators of whether it is an appropriate scale. It must therefore be concluded that the proposals scale is commensurate with the role and function of Leek and its catchment.

Any Locally Important Impacts

5.120 The local authority has not identified any additional locally important impacts and therefore this criterion is not relevant to the consideration of the application proposals.

59

Whether the Proposal will Limit Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Minimise Vulnerability to Climate Change

5.121 A detailed Renewable Energy and Efficiency Assessment prepared by Synergy is submitted in support of the planning application.

5.122 The redevelopment proposal will result in a more efficient use of the under utilised run down site, increase the vitality and viability of the surrounding area, encouraging linked trips to Leek town centre and importantly will substantially reducing journeys currently taken by shoppers to locations outside of Leek.

5.123 The proposed layout of the site provides improved connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists and provides enhanced accessibility. The public transport provision (shuttle bus) will help increase the connectivity of the site with Leek town centre in a sustainable manner.

5.124 The development proposes to include a number of measures to help reduce energy consumption both through the materials used and the construction process, and as part of the passive design measures and efficient technologies incorporated within the scheme. Sainsbury’s is committed to understanding climate change and making a positive contribution to reducing its direct environmental impact. The Design and Access Statement and the Renewable Energy Efficiency Assessment prepared by Synergy provides further details on how this can be achieved through this development and how the proposals accord with Local Plan Policy SD1.

5.125 In addition to the above, the scheme proposes to provide a Biomass Boiler which will produce 15.2% of the total commercial and residential predicted energy use for the scheme. This is a significant commitment to renewable energy provision within Leek, and meets and exceeds the policy requirements of Policy SD1 of the SMDC Core Strategy and Policy SR3 of the West Midlands RSS.

5.126 In addition to the renewable energy, the Sainsbury’s store will be constructed to achieve a BREEAM ‘Very Good’ standard. The food store element of the scheme will incorporate Rain Water Harvesting to serve the toilet areas. The employment units will be constructed to achieve a BREEAM ‘Very Good’ standard, whilst the residential units will be constructed to achieve a Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 standard, and water conservation standards will achieve Level 4 in line with the Regional Policy requirements.

5.127 As a result, we believe the proposal has been planned to limit carbon dioxide emissions and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to, climate change.

60

Accessibility

5.128 PPS4 requires an assessment of the accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the car as well as the effect on local traffic levels and congestion (Policy EC10.2b.).

5.129 A full assessment of the sites accessibility is set out in the Transport Assessment prepared by Denis Wilson Partnership submitted in support of the application.

5.130 The Transport Assessment concludes that the site is well served by sustainable modes of travel, being located adjacent to the established bus routes and the high level of pedestrians and cyclists that are already on the local network within the vicinity of the site. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to enhance the vehicular accessibility of the site by the provision of a dedicated bus link with the town centre as well as enhancing pedestrian and cycle assess.

High Quality and Inclusive Design

5.131 The design and layout of the proposal has been given careful consideration and developed in response to the site context. Particular consideration has been given to the internal layout of the scheme and how these uses relate to the proposed residential properties and access into and around the site. Consideration has also been given to the height and massing of development on the site and the relationship with the surrounding special landscape area and countryside.

5.132 The design process has undergone several iterations in consultation with Council Officers, Urban Vision (Design Review Panel) and other relevant stakeholders.

5.133 The site is currently of poor quality in terms of urban design and fabric. It is dominated by bulky and tired industrial buildings. As stated in Section 3, the proposals seek to enhance the design quality of the site by providing a modern contemporary building design and sustainable urban layout. In addition to the proposed landscaping enhancements, the scheme will substantially improve the appearance and setting of the site as well as enhancing the setting of the Listed Mill buildings to the south of the site. The scale and massing of the proposal will respect the prevailing building heights as well as the setting of the Listed Buildings.

5.134 The elevation treatment of the scheme uses a mixed palette of materials and finishes to add interest to the site area, reflecting the contemporary design of the store, retail units and employment units. The design of the residential elements of the scheme will be borne out within the reserved matters application and will reflect the existing design and character of the surrounding land uses and street frontage.

61

5.135 The form and layout of the access roads and car parking within the scheme provides an effective design solution which allows access to the commercial uses as well integrating pedestrian and cycle routes for users of the site and owners of the residential properties.

5.136 A full analysis of how the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design is set out in the Design & Access Statement prepared by Chetwoods.

5.137 The scheme therefore fully accords with the government’s high quality design agenda within PPS4 and policy B13 of the adopted Local Plan and DC1 of the emerging Core Strategy.

Impact on Economic and Physical Regeneration in the Area

5.138 The economic impact effects of the proposal have been detailed in the preceding sections of this report and it is clear that in accordance with the emerging Core Strategy the proposals will deliver significant physical regeneration benefits in the immediate and wider area.

5.139 The scheme will deliver substantial economic and physical regeneration benefits.

Impact on Local Employment

5.140 The Environmental Assessment submitted in support of the application indicates that the proposal would generate between 100 and 150 new employment opportunities during the construction phase of the development. Further, between 625 and 675 new job opportunities will be generated by the operational requirements of the development.

5.141 The nature of the employment opportunities is such that the majority of the new jobs will be drawn from the surrounding community, thereby providing further benefits to the local economy.

5.142 The proposals would therefore have a significant positive impact on the local employment market.

Conclusion on Impact & Other Material Considerations

5.143 It is evident from the above that the proposal would not have any significant adverse impacts under Policies EC10.2 and EC16.1. In such circumstances (under Policy EC17.2) planning applications should be determined taking account of the

62

positive and negative impacts of the proposals and any other material considerations.

5.144 Further analysis of the acceptability of the application proposals is set out in Section 6 albeit it is worth noting here that the proposal will deliver a number of significant positive benefits to the site and the wider Leek area:

• The proposal will have a positive impact on safeguarding the vitality and viability of Leek. The proposed private sector funding will secure the future of the site and will assist the centre by reducing expenditure leakage and encouraging increased patronage within the town. Without this investment, expenditure will continue to leak to competing centres and larger facilities.

• The proposals will provide significant investment in the area that will enhance Leek’s wider image as an area for inward investment, improving commercial confidence in the town.

• The proposal will change the range of services provided in Leek in a positive way. It will deliver a convenience and bulky goods focus to complement the comparison led town centre. Increased patronage within Leek will lead to the centre also benefiting.

• The proposed development will have a major positive impact on the quality, attractiveness, physical condition and character of Leek as a retail location. The scheme will enhance the centres role in the economic and social life of the community.

5.145 In addition, the wider positive benefits of the application proposal are summarised in paragraph 1.6 of this Report.

Conclusions on Retail Policy

5.146 It is evident from the above, that the application proposals fully accord with the requirements of PPS4. We have assessed the proposals on the basis of the tests set out in PPS4 for out-of-centre proposals. In this regard we have reached the following conclusions:

• the site is sequentially preferred given the lack of suitably positioned town and edge-of-centre facilities;

• the proposal would have a positive impact on the trading position of Leek and would not unduly impact other stores or centres; and

63

• the proposal will deliver a number of substantial material benefits to the site and wider area.

5.147 We therefore believe the proposal fully accord with national Policy PPS4 and policies SS5, SS5a, TCR1 and TCR2 of the emerging Core Strategy.

64

6. Planning Assessment

6.1 Having examined the site and surroundings, the proposed development and the planning policy context, it is evident that in addition to the principle of retailing in this location (examined in Section 5 of this Statement) the following issues are relevant to the proposal:

• Principle of Redevelopment (including residential & employment uses)

• Environmental Considerations

• Access, Transport and Parking

• Landscape and Visual Impact

• Flood Risk

• Heritage

Principle of Redevelopment

6.2 The site comprises is an existing employment site of poor quality and in need of regeneration. To this end the site is identified within the emerging Core Strategy as an Major Regeneration Opportunity Site, to provide commercial and leisure uses in order to achieve the area’s renaissance. The proposed redevelopment of the site would make more efficient use of the existing land and would renew this urban site providing significant enhancement to local facilities, which is supported at both national and local policy level.

6.3 In addition to the proposed Sainsbury’s store, the scheme will also provide 3 non food retail units that will enhance the retail offer of Leek and complement the use of the Sainsbury’s store. The provision of replacement employment facilities will enable employment use to continue on the site in modern fit for purpose premises and be fully in accordance with PPS4 and adopted and emerging local planning policy.

6.4 In addition to the commercial elements of the scheme, the provision of additional housing will contribute to the vitality and viability of the area as well as contributing to the housing provision targets for SMDC. The provision of affordable housing will also provide welcome socio-economic benefits that are fully in accordance with PPS3 and the emerging Core Strategy.

65

Environmental Considerations

6.5 A number of studies have been undertaken as part of the development of this scheme to assess the impact of the proposal on the following:

• Ecology

• Archaeology

• Noise

• Air Quality

• Ground Conditions

6.6 These issues are examined in more detail in the accompanying Environmental Statement and appendices which are submitted as part of the formal planning application.

Ecology

6.7 An Ecological Assessment has been undertaken by Landscape Science Consultancy. The aim of this survey was to identify all relevant aspects of ecology on the site and assess their relative importance, as well as determining the likely scale and magnitude of ecological impacts from the proposed development.

6.8 It was found that a large area of the site was dominated by buildings and hard standing. A semi-improved grassland area is present to the north where scrub and tall ruderal vegetation were identified. The river Churnet runs along the eastern boundary of the site and through the application site to the south, with an overflow channel forming the northern boundary.

6.9 Evidence was recorded to indicate the presence of foraging bats and badgers, foraging and breeding birds and breeding grass snakes on site. Suitable water vole habitat was identified. Mitigation has been designed into the proposals to ensure that the impacts to protected species on site are minimised, resulting in a negligible impact during the construction phase. Further details of these mitigation measures can be found in Chapter 9 of the Environmental Statement.

Archaeology

6.10 The site lies within the floodplain and there is potential for prehistoric activity and former courses of the river within the associated waterlogged environmental

66

remains. The depth and sequence of deposits is currently unknown. Further details of the likely archaeological impacts of the scheme can be found in Chapter 11 of the Environmental Statement.

6.11 The principal effect of the proposed development on archaeological remains will be as a result of development near to the Brindley Mill and other listed buildings near to the development including the pedestrian footbridge. The appropriate mitigation measures will be taken in accordance with the provisions of PPG16 and regional policy.

6.12 In advance of construction an archaeological evaluation will take place to a specification agreed with the Planning Archaeologist of Staffordshire County Council. Should any significant remains be found, a further programme of mitigation will be put in place to allow their recording and/or recovery.

Noise

6.13 The demolition and construction of the site, the Service Yard operations and operational traffic have all been assessed in terms of the noise impact on the surrounding residential properties. Noise emanating from the Service Yard operation was not considered significant on the existing residential properties, given the distance from potential residential receptors and the proposed intervening buildings.

6.14 In terms of construction noise and impacts, SMDC’s Environmental Health Officer stated a preference for control of noise and vibration through the application by the principal contractor for a S.61 prior consent in accordance with the Control of Pollution Act 1974. At this time a more detailed construction method will be available and will enable a more robust noise and vibration control measures to be specified. Further details of the likely noise impacts of the scheme can be found in Chapter 12 of the Environmental Statement.

Air Quality

6.15 The construction phase has the potential to cause nuisance through the release of dust at houses and the listed water mill buildings adjacent to the Development Site. Overall, construction activities and on-road and off-road construction vehicles are predicted to have a temporary and localised adverse effect on local air quality for the duration of the construction works only.

67

6.16 The operational Development is predicted to increase traffic levels on the local road network, including in the centre of Leek. However, air pollution concentrations at roadside residential properties in the centre of Leek and near to the site are within acceptable levels. Air quality levels predicted at the proposed new housing units were also considered acceptable.

6.17 Potential emissions from the proposed biomass boiler plant on-site were calculated in accordance with Government technical guidance and emissions were found to be below the threshold of significance at which detailed modelling would be required.

6.18 Tessenderlo Fine Chemicals (TFC) operates an industrial facility adjacent to the Site. Emissions from TFC were considered in-combination with on-Site vehicle exhaust releases and were found to be below the relevant air quality objectives.

6.19 A number of best practice mitigation measures for the control of dust release from construction activities will be detailed within an Environmental Management Plan. No mitigation measures are considered necessary for the completed Development, in terms of air quality.

Ground Conditions

6.20 The direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Development arising from the existing ground conditions have been assessed by Pam Brown Associates. Further details of the methodology for this assessment can be found Chapter 15 of the Environmental Statement.

6.21 The potential effects were determined on a number of receptors including: site workers and public; future site occupants; surface and ground waters; soil/ground; sensitive Ecosystem and proposed structures. Mitigation and remediation measures are proposed with the residual effects after their implementation determined. It is anticipated that during demolition only minor impacts are anticipated. The site will be remediated and validated to statutory regulator requirements.

Access, Transport and Car Parking

6.22 As part of the planning application submission a Transport Assessment (TA) was prepared by Denis Wilson Partnership to provide information on the traffic and transportation aspects of the proposed scheme.

68

6.23 Policy T14 of the Local Plan states that planning permission will not be granted for development that will lead to additional cars or commercial vehicles entering unsuitable areas, particularly those that are environmentally sensitive. In this regard, the TA demonstrates how the proposals are designed to maximise travel to the development by sustainable transport modes.

6.24 There are two measures which serve to provide genuine sustainable links with the surrounding area and improve links with the town centre. Firstly the scheme will provide a strategic pedestrian/cycle route into the site, utilising the existing access from Abbey Green Road. This will link into the existing infrastructure in the area including a controlled pedestrian crossing of Macclesfield Road. The second key measures is the proposal to provide a shuttle bus service that links the development with the town centre and surrounding residential areas.

6.25 The traffic generation and distribution for the proposed development has been carried out and assigned to the local highway network, the impact assessment demonstrate that the development is likely to have an operational impact on the areas surrounding junctions. Given the nature of the surrounding junctions it is considered more appropriate for the developer to financially contribute to the forthcoming Draft Transport Strategy for Leek, which provides towards an area-wide improvement fund.

6.26 The site is already considered accessible to the town centre and nearby residential areas by sustainable transport modes, although the proposed enhancements will promote sustainable travel even further. The transport contribution will provide an appropriate mitigation measure and as such the proposed development will help provide benefits to the existing transport networks.

6.27 The main access to the commercial elements of the scheme is taken from a main ‘A’ Road and therefore they will provide adequate capacity for additional traffic impacts and delivery vehicles accessing the site. The internal site layout has been designed to accommodate the required manoeuvres for any HGVs visiting the site.

6.28 The use of the existing access to the residential element of the site only from Abbey Green Road will ensure that only a minimum amount of traffic will continue to use this access helping to create an appropriate residential environment. This will actually provide a net reduction in travel levels at this part of the site given that the existing use of this access is for the industrial works units.

6.29 In addition to the above measures, cycle parking will be provided in the form of sheltered Sheffield stands, as well as dedicated motorcycle parking, parent and child and disabled parking bays. The parking spaces are located appropriately

69

throughout the site and provides adequate car parking provision for the scheme in accordance with national planning policy guidance.

Landscape and Visual Impact

6.30 The proposed development will include a high quality landscaping scheme which will improve the quality of the immediate area. The landscape proposals cover the part of the site to be developed for commercial uses as well as the area of public open space in the north eastern part of the site.

6.31 The schemes impact on the Special Landscape Area will be local in context due to the sites location in a comparatively narrow valley. Although the siting of the development would still be visible from these areas, it would not form the key feature of the view across the site, and therefore would not materially detract from the high quality of landscape due to the scale design and materials used.

6.32 The need for the development and the regeneration benefits that it will provide are considerable factors to be taken into account when assessing the nature conservation importance of the adjoining area of open space. Whilst it is considered that these benefits outweigh the nature conservation importance of the adjoining area of open space, there will be an overall increase in vegetation across the site. The most visually significant vegetation will be retained, whilst any trees or shrubs lost will be replaced with nursery stocks.

6.33 The provision of the public open space to the north east part of the site will provide adequate public space for the amount of residential development that is proposed on the site in accordance with Policy R2.

6.34 In order to protect trees and other vegetation throughout the construction period, measures have been set out in the approved Tree Protection Plan and Aboricultural Method Statement. Further details of these documents and the landscape and visual impacts of the scheme can be found in Chapter 10 of the Environmental Statement.

Flood Risk

6.35 A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was carried out by Denis Wilson for the proposed development, to assess the effect that the development would have on local flooding. Further details on the FRA can be found in Chapter 14 of the Environmental Statement.

70

6.36 The site is located in Flood Zone 3a and therefore is inside the currently defined 1% annual exceedence probability (AEP) flood event. There is a low risk of sewer and surface water drainage outside the application site boundary.

6.37 It is proposed that any surface water car park run-off will be discharged into permeable surfacing into the flood compensation / wetland area at the north east part of the site. The surface water run off for the food store and retail units will be recycled in a rainwater harvesting system.

6.38 In addition it is proposed that the development will include a number of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) such as a grey water recycling using underground tanks in the car park to collect water run off; oversized pipes within the private drainage system can be used to provide additional storage volume; and permeable hard standing can be used incorporating porous asphalt, which allows water to percolate into the subsoil or reservoir layer or into the main surface water drainage system.

Heritage

6.39 The proposals will visually alter the setting of the Listed Buildings which front onto Macclesfield Road in the south eastern corner of the site. However, the current setting is of poor quality industrial buildings, with an untidy appearance of lorry car parking and redundant/tired warehouse buildings. The existing site therefore does not contribute positively to the setting of the Listed Buildings at the site.

6.40 The proposal will address these negative features and provide significant enhancement to the setting of the Listed Building in accordance with PPG15 guidance. This will be through the provision of adequate green and open space throughout the development and immediately to the rear of the Listed Buildings. The scale and character of the proposed development will not impact on this area, as the commercial buildings are located on the western part of the site.

6.41 The existing Supersport warehouse located adjacent to the Listed Buildings provides an adequate ‘buffer’ from the taller buildings (residential flats) proposed further west along Macclesfield Road. Against this background, the impact on the setting of the Listed Buildings will be positive and will substantially improve the appearance of the surrounding area, enhancing the buildings setting.

71

7. Draft Heads of Terms

7.1 A number of significant benefits will be delivered by the application proposals. As is usual with a major application we suggest that these be secured by inclusion within a S106 Agreement linked to the planning permission.

7.2 The Heads of Terms considered necessary in this case are set out as follows:

• Commitment to deliver the open space works shown on the submitted plans through delivery of the physical works;

• Commitment to provide a shuttle bus service between the site and the town centre for a period of two years as detailed in the Transport Assessment;

• Level of affordable housing provision;

• Commitment to deliver the identified junction improvement works as set out in the Transport Assessment through a financial payment or through the delivery of the physical works; and

• Implementation of a Travel Plan

7.3 This list is provided as a draft to stimulate further discussion with the Council during the determination of the planning application.

72

8. Summary and Conclusions

8.1 The application proposals seek to provide a comprehensive redevelopment of the Churnet Works site on Macclesfield Road, Leek.

8.2 The scheme will deliver a comprehensive redevelopment of a run down underutilised site in a key gateway location. It will provide significant improvements to the existing retail offer of the town, additional housing provision (including affordable housing), modern employment premises and a large area of public open space.

8.3 In summary, the key benefits of the scheme include:

• The delivery (through private investment) of one of only two sites identified in the Core Strategy Submission Draft as a Major Regeneration Opportunity Site for the mix of uses envisaged by the Council;

• the single ownership of the site will allow the speedy delivery of the scheme and the resultant benefits;

• creation of 625 - 675 new job opportunities across the site – the majority of which will be sourced locally;

• retention of existing Churnet Works tenants into new purpose built accommodation and attracting new employers into the town;

• provision of much need housing accommodation include affordable housing provision;

• provision of enhanced shopping facilities that will complement rather than compete with the existing town centre retailers and retain expenditure currently leaking to other stores/centres beyond Leek;

• opportunity to address existing site issues such as flooding, anti-social behaviour, contamination and the generally run-down unattractive appearance of the site;

• opportunity to open the currently private site up to public access including the provision of enhanced areas of public open space and environmental improvements to the River Churnet;

• opportunity to enhance the setting of the Listed Brindley Mill and provide an attractive gateway into the town;

73

• provision of car parking that will be linked to the town centre by a regular shuttle bus;

• Improvements to the accessibility of the site including enhanced vehicular, bus, pedestrian and cycle access; and

• reintroduces scale and massing fronting Macclesfield Road and introduces the use of local materials such as Staffordshire blue brick.

8.4 The application is accompanied by a full suite of supporting documents including an Environmental Assessment that give further consideration to matters relating to transport, landscaping, ecology, noise, air quality, contamination, and flood risk.

8.5 It has been demonstrated that the scheme accords with relevant policies within the development plan, national guidance and other supplementary planning documents. Therefore taking into consideration the substantial tangible benefits arising from the proposals, we conclude that the application should be approved.

Appendix 1 Site Location Plan

Appendix 2 Existing Building Survey Location Plan

DA

TE: Nov 09

SCA

LE: TO SCA

LER

evision

FIGU

RE:

TITLE:

PRO

JECT:

Source: Survey Three drawing 3636_2D

ia

Building

The South Wing

The Old B

arracks, Sandon RoadG

rantham, Lincolnshire

NG

31 9AS

01476 569600 Fax: 01476 569633em

ail: admin@

landscapescienceconsultancy.co.ukw

ww

.landscapescienceconsultancy.co.uk

Key

9.06

A82.09 C

hurnet Works, Leek

Building Survey Locations

Appendix 3 Illustrative Masterplan

Appendix 4 Convenience Goods Capacity Assessment

CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

LEEK

TABLE 1: ESTIMATED POPULATION AND CONVENIENCE GOODS EXPENDITURE

1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTALLeek Leek South Leek North Biddulph Cheadle Cheadle Outer

2008Population 19,717 28,018 6,832 20,013 11,189 22,700 74,580Expenditure per Head (£) 1,429 1,424 1,585 1,397 1,345 1,434Total Expenditure (£m) 28.18 39.90 10.83 27.96 15.05 32.55 154.46

2013Population 19,234 27,222 6,731 19,613 10,987 22,159 72,800Expenditure per Head (£) 1,480 1,474 1,642 1,446 1,393 1,485Total Expenditure (£m) 28.47 40.13 11.05 28.36 15.30 32.91 156.22

2016Population 19,052 26,829 6,694 19,369 10,891 21,887 71,944Expenditure per Head (£) 1,511 1,506 1,676 1,477 1,422 1,516Total Expenditure (£m) 28.79 40.40 11.22 28.61 15.49 33.18 157.69

2021Population 18,749 26,174 6,632 18,962 10,731 21,434 70,517Expenditure per Head (£) 1,565 1,559 1,736 1,529 1,473 1,570Total Expenditure (£m) 29.34 40.81 11.51 28.99 15.81 33.65 160.11

Expenditure Growth 2009-2017 (£m) 1.17 0.91 0.68 1.03 0.76 1.10 5.65

NOTES:

1. Table mirrors Table 3 of GVA Grimley District Retail Study November 20062. Population figures and projections taken from GVA Grimley District Retail Study November 2006.3. Convenience retail expenditure per head (goods based) figures taken from GVA Grimley District Retail Study November 2006. 4. Expenditure figures quoted in 2003 Prices to accord with GVA Grimley District Retail Study November 20065. Figures may not cast due to rounding.

ZONE

January 2010 Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd TURLEY ASSOCIATES

CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

LEEK

TABLE 2: THEORETICAL CONVENIENCE TURNOVER OF EXISTING SUPERMARKETS AND CENTRES WITHIN LEEK - AT 2008

Floorspace Turnover Turnover % Turnover from Total TurnoverConvenience (sq m) per sq m (£m) within Catchment from Catchment (£m)

Leek Town Centre

696 4,250 2.96 100 2.96

273 4,000 1.09 100 1.09

Others 1,703 2,000 3.41 100 3.41

Sub-Total 2,672 7.46 7.46

Leek - Out-of-Centre

1,522 11,121 16.93 100 16.93

Co-op 1,564 5,694 8.91 100 8.91

Netto 689 4,250 2.93 100 2.93

Sub-Total 3,775 28.76 28.76

Total 6,447 36.22 36.22

NOTES:

1. Floorspace figures taken from GVA Grimley District Retail Study November 2006 & Morrisons Retail & Planning Statement April 20092. Turnover per sq. m figures for specific retailers taken from Verdict 2009 (for whole portfolio) and converted to 2003 prices (PBBI Brief 09/02).3. Turnover Aldi & Netto assumed to be identical and taken from GVA Grimley District Retail Study November 2006. 4. Turnover for other town centre floorspace taken from GVA Grimley District Retail Study November 2006.5. Non convenience floorspace deducted where appropriate.6. Figures may not cast due to rounding.

Aldi

Farmfoods

Morrisons

January 2010 Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd TURLEY ASSOCIATES

CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

LEEK

TABLE 3: CONVENIENCE TURNOVER OF EXISTING RETAIL COMMITMENTS - AT 2008

Floorspace Turnover Turnover % Turnover from Total TurnoverConvenience (sq m) per sq m (£m) within Catchment from Catchment (£m)

Out-of-Centre Floorspace

801 5,560 4.45 100 4.45

Sub-Total 801 5,560 4.45 4.45

NOTES:

1. Floorspace figures taken from Morrisons Retail & Planning Statement - April 2009.2. Turnover of Morrisons extension taken from Retail & Planning Statement (April 2009) paragraph 5.13 (50% of company average) 3. Morrison company average turnover taken from Verdict 2009 (for whole portfolio) and converted to 2003 prices (PBBI Brief 09/02).4. Figures may not cast due to rounding.

Morrisons

January 2010 Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd TURLEY ASSOCIATES

CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

LEEK

TABLE 4: TOTAL ESTIMATED TURNOVER OF CONVENIENCE FLOORSPACE AT 2008

Location Total Net Total TurnoverFloorspace Turnover from PCA

(sq m ) (£m) (£m)

Leek 6,447 36.22 36.22

Leek - Commitments 801 4.45 4.45

PCA facilities Total 7,248 40.67 40.67

Beyond Catchment and Overtrading - - 113.79

TOTAL 154.46

NOTES:

1. Figures taken from Tables 1 - 3.2. Figures may not cast due to rounding.

January 2010 Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd TURLEY ASSOCIATES

CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

LEEK

TABLE 5: CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Existing MarketShare2008 2008 2013 2016 2021

1 Total Available Convenience Goods Retail Expenditure 154.46 154.46 156.22 157.69 160.11

2 5.79

3 38.75

4 44.54 60.75 62.90 64.14 66.5228.84 39.3 40.3 40.7 41.5

5 Average Turnover of Leek Centre Convenience Floorspace(2008 base year, thereafter @ 0.15% efficiency increase 7.46 7.46 7.49 7.51 7.55

6 28.76 28.76 28.76 28.76 28.76

7 Commitments 0.00 0.00 4.45 4.45 4.45

8 36.22 36.22 40.70 40.73 40.76

9 8.32 24.53 22.20 23.41 25.76

NOTES:

1. Figures taken from Tables 1-4 and Table 10 of GVA Grimley District Retail Study November 2006.2. Town centre floorspace turnover increased by 0.15% per annum from 2009 as advised by PBBI.3. Increase in market share justification detailed in GVA Grimley District Retail Study November 20064. Proposed convenience turnover of SSL Leek calculated at £25.08m.5. 90% of convenience floorspace derived from within Leek catchment (£22.57m).6. Figures may not cast due to rounding.

Residual Convenience Capacity (4 - 8)

Average Turnover of Leek Out-of-Centre Facilities

Total Average Turnover of Leek Facilities

per annum)

(Existing Out-Of-Centre Supermarkets)

Market Share (2+3) - (£)Market Share - (%)

(Defined Centre Turnover)

Actual Turnover Derived from Catchment

GVA Increased Market Share

Actual Turnover Derived from Catchment

January 2010 Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd TURLEY ASSOCIATES

CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

LEEK

TABLE 6: CONVENIENCE GOODS CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Existing MarketShare2008 2008 2013 2016 2021

1 Total Available Convenience Goods Retail Expenditure 154.46 154.46 156.22 157.69 160.11

2 5.79

3 38.75

4 44.54 69.51 70.30 70.96 72.0528.84 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0

5 Average Turnover of Leek Centre Convenience Floorspace(2008 base year, thereafter @ 0.15% efficiency increase 7.46 7.46 7.49 7.51 7.55

6 28.76 28.76 28.76 28.76 28.76

7 Commitments 0.00 0.00 4.45 4.45 4.45

8 36.22 36.22 40.70 40.73 40.76

9 8.32 33.29 29.59 30.23 31.29

NOTES:

1. Figures taken from Tables 1-4 and Table 10 of GVA Grimley District Retail Study November 2006.2. Town centre floorspace turnover increased by 0.15% per annum from 2009 as advised by PBBI.3. Increase in market share justification detailed Section 5 of Statement4. Proposed convenience turnover of SSL Leek calculated at £25.08m.5. 90% of convenience floorspace derived from within Leek catchment (£22.57m).6. Figures may not cast due to rounding.

Total Average Turnover of Leek Facilities

per annum)

Average Turnover of Leek Out-of-Centre Facilities

(Existing Out-Of-Centre Supermarkets)

Market Share (2+3) - (£)Market Share - (%)

Residual Convenience Capacity (4 - 8)

TA Increased Market Share

Actual Turnover Derived from Catchment(Defined Centre Turnover)

Actual Turnover Derived from Catchment

January 2010 Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd TURLEY ASSOCIATES

Appendix 5 Retail Impact Assessment

LEEK

TABLE 1: ESTIMATED CONVENIENCE GOODS TRADE DIVERSION

Store/Centre Gross Area Net Sales Area 2009 Sales Company Survey SSL Biddulph Revised Revised Diversion Residual Residual % impact % impact(sq m) (sq m) Density Benchmark Derived Diversion Benchmark Survey % £m % £m % £m £m Benchmark T/O Survey T/O benchmark survey derived

(£/sq m) Turnover Turnover (£m) Turnover Turnover Post - SSL Post - SSL turnover turnover

Morrison's Leek 5,610 2,323 11,121 25.83 28.43 0.42 25.41 28.01 52 2.93 20 2.48 10 0.45 5.87 19.55 22.14 23.09 20.95Aldi Leek 1,070 856 4,250 3.64 3.67 3.64 3.67 2.5 0.14 2.5 0.31 1 0.05 0.50 3.14 3.17 13.65 13.53Co-op Leek 2,300 1,840 5,694 10.48 8.47 10.48 8.47 16.7 0.94 2.1 0.26 5 0.23 1.43 9.05 7.04 13.64 16.87Netto Leek 689 4,250 2.93 N/A 2.93 2.5 0.14 2.5 0.31 1 0.05 0.50Asda Tunstall 7,154 3,873 13,791 53.41 N/A 5.07 48.34 2.5 0.14 8.8 1.09 0 0.00 1.23 47.11 2.55Morisson's Festival Park 8,278 3,951 11,121 43.94 N/A 2.1 41.84 1.5 0.08 14.2 1.76 0 0.00 1.85 39.99 4.42Sainsbury's Macclesfield 5,700 3,204 9,046 28.98 N/A 0.15 28.83 1 0.06 0 0.00 20 0.90 0.96 27.87 3.33Tesco Congleton 3,299 2,209 11,818 26.11 N/A 2.81 23.30 0 0.00 0 0.00 3.8 0.17 0.17 23.12 0.74Sainsbury's Stoke-on-Trent 5,563 2,965 9,046 26.82 N/A 26.82 0.5 0.03 10 1.24 0 0.00 1.27 25.55 4.73Tesco Stoke-on-Trent 8,937 5,259 11,818 62.15 N/A 0.23 61.92 0 0.00 4.7 0.58 0 0.00 0.58 61.34 0.94Tesco Longton 10,242 7,439 11,818 87.91 N/A 87.91 1 0.06 5.4 0.67 0 0.00 0.73 87.19 0.83Tesco Meir 7,239 4,685 11,818 55.37 N/A 55.37 2.5 0.14 6.5 0.81 0 0.00 0.95 54.42 1.71Tesco Macclesfield 6,312 4,008 11,818 47.37 N/A 47.37 0.5 0.03 0 0.00 25 1.13 1.16 46.21 2.44

Buxton Supermarkets N/A N/A N/A 0.5 0.03 0.4 0.05 25.4 1.15 1.22

Tesco Kidsgrove 3,921 2,532 11,818 29.92 N/A 1.12 28.80Morrison's Congleton 4,150 1,852 11,121 20.60 N/A 1.33 19.27Sainsbury's Newcastle 3,953 2,317 9,046 20.96 N/A 0.44 20.52Kwik Save Biddulph 1,114 891 7,488 6.67 N/A 0.26 6.41Co-op Biddulph 1,202 561 5,694 3.19 N/A 0.15 3.04Somerfield Biddulph 829 663 7,488 4.96 N/A 4.4 0.56

Other Stores/Centres N/A 2.52 11.3 0.64 17.9 2.22 3.8 0.17 3.03

Sainsbury's Biddulph 2,322 9,046 21.00 21.00 21.00 5 0.28 5 0.62 5 0.23 1.13 19.87 5.37

Proposed Sainsbury's Leek 2,772 9,046 22.57 100 5.64 100 12.41 100 4.51 22.57

NOTES:

1. Proposed convenience turnover of SSL Leek calculated at £25.08m.2. 90% of new store turnover derived from Leek catchment (£22.57m).3. Floorspace figures taken from Table 1 of GVA Impact Assessment - February 2008.4. Netto, Leek included.5. Morrison's Leek assumed to be extended. 6. SSL Biddulph assumed to be open and trading7. Biddulph diversion taken from Table 3 of GVA Impact Assessment February 2008 adjusted to accord with lower store turnover. 8. SSL Leek store diversion taken from Table 1 of GVA Impact Assessment February 2008 adjusted to accord with anticipated turnover levels and SSL as occupier.9. National company average turnover levels for specific retailers taken from Verdict 2009 and converted to 2003 Prices to accord with GVA Impact Assessment (PBBI Brief 09/02 ).10. Figures may not cast due to rounding

Turnover Draw FromLeek Zone

Turnover Draw FromLeek North Zone

Turnover Draw FromLeek South Zone

Appendix 6 Sequential Assessment

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 1

Site 1

Location California Mill Area – See Sequential Site Location Plan

Size 1.89 Ha

Existing Uses The site currently accommodates retail units off Stockwell Road and a disused and derelict industrial building (to the rear). To the north, a further industrial unit is located within its own grounds.

Relationship with Town Centre

The retail unit part of the site is located approximately 150 – 200 metres from the main town centre shopping streets and is considered an edge of centre location. The rear part of the site is located over 300 metres from the main shopping streets.

Development Plan Allocation The retail units are located within the Leek Conservation Area.

The emerging Leek Town Centre Masterplan (LTCM) identifies the site for new education facilities adjacent to Leek College with enhanced links to Brough Park.

Requirements for Land Assembly

We understand that the site is within mixed ownership and is not currently available.

Physical/Development Constraints

The northern part of the site is physically divorced from the retail element by a significant drop in the levels.

The retail unit part of the site is considered to small to accommodate the proposed development in whole or in part.

Conclusion The site is considered to be inappropriate for the proposed development as:-

- it is not suitable for the proposed development as the site is too small

and poorly configured; - the proposed use is not in accordance with the Council’s emerging

policy aspirations for the site; and - the mixed ownership position means that the site is unlikely to be

available within a reasonable time period.

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 2

Site 2

Location Former British Trimmings Site – See Sequential Site Location Plan

Size 1.23Ha

Existing Uses The site is currently vacant and levelled.

Relationship with Town Centre

The site is located approximately 800 metres from the main town centre shopping streets and therefore represents an out of centre location.

Development Plan Allocation There is no policy allocation for the site in the adopted Local Plan.

The emerging LTCM identifies the site for residential for assisted care uses.

Requirements for Land Assembly

We understand that the site is within private ownership and is available for development.

Physical/Development Constraints

The site is located in a primarily residential area.

There is a significant levels difference from the north to the south of the site. The site is considered to small to accommodate the proposed development in whole or in part.

Conclusion The site is not considered appropriate for the proposed development as:- - it is not suitable for the proposed development as it is too small; - the proposed use is not in accordance with the Council’s policy

aspirations for the site; and - in any event the site is not sequentially preferable to the application

site.

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 3

Site 3

Location Eaton House – See Sequential Site Location Plan

Size 2.55 Ha

Existing Uses The site currently provides occupied office accommodation and an Adams

food factory. Tesco Stores Ltd submitted a planning application for a 2.959 sq m (net) foodstore, offices and PFS scheme on the site on 16 December 2009 albeit the application is not yet registered as valid.

Relationship with Town Centre

The site is located approximately 350 metres from the main town centre shopping streets on the northern side of Buxton Road. The site represents an out-of-centre location. The site is divorced from the town centre by Buxton Road.

Development Plan Allocation The site is not covered by a policy designation albeit the loss of the existing

employment uses on the site would be contrary to Policy E7 of the adopted Local Plan.

The emerging LTCM identifies the site for new and refurbished office accommodation fronting Buxton Road with traditional family housing to the rear, commensurate with the surrounding residential character of the area.

Requirements for Land Assembly

The site is within mixed ownership and it is unclear how the site can be delivered for development.

Physical/Development Constraints

The site is within mixed ownership and at the current time there is no clarity on how the site will be made available for development. It cannot therefore be considered available for development. The significant levels difference across the site could not accommodate significant retail development in an appropriate form and layout. The site is located in close proximity to residential properties and the impact on residential amenity of the surrounding area in terms of access and servicing arrangements will need careful consideration.

Conclusion The site is considered to be inappropriate for the proposed development as:-

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 4

- it is not sequentially preferable to the application site; - its is unavailable for the proposed development; and - the site constraints are likely to render a foodstore proposal in this

location unacceptable on development control grounds; and - the development of the site for retail uses would be contrary to

adopted Local Plan policy and the emerging policy aspirations identified in the LTCM.

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 5

Site 4

Location Portland Street Mill Area – See Sequential Site Location Plan

Size 0.47 Ha

Existing Uses Part employment/engineering use. Part vacant.

Relationship with Town Centre

The site lies in an out-of-centre location, over 300 metres from the main town centre shopping streets.

Development Plan Allocation No Policy Allocation in the adopted Local Plan albeit Policy E7 will be

relevant.

The emerging LTCM identifies the site for refurbished offices in existing buildings together with new offices on the Buxton Road frontage.

Requirements for Land Assembly

We understand that the site is within private ownership and could be brought forward for development.

Physical/Development Constraints

The site is bounded by the highway on all sides.

The site is considered too small to accommodate the proposed development either in whole or in part.

Conclusion The site is considered to be inappropriate for the proposed development as:-

- the site is not sequentially preferable to the application site; - it is not suitable for the proposed development as site is too small;

and - the development of the site for retail uses would be contrary to

adopted Local Plan policy and the emerging policy aspirations identified in the LTCM.

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 6

Site 5

Location London Mill/York Mill Area – See Sequential Site Location Plan

Size 0.61

Existing Uses Part of the site appears to be in use as residential and part of it is in use as a nursery facility. The main part of the site fronting onto Ashbourne Road is vacant.

Relationship with Town Centre

The site is considered an edge of centre location as it is between 100 – 200 metres from the main town centre shopping streets.

Development Plan Allocation No Policy Allocation in the adopted Local Plan.

The emerging LTCM identifies the site for potential hotel use.

Requirements for Land Assembly

We understand that the site is within private ownership.

Physical/Development Constraints

The London Mill is a Grade II Listed Building.

The size of the site would not accommodate the proposed scheme provisions in whole or in part. An adopted highway dissects the London and York Mill sites, this also provides a convoluted site configuration which does not lend itself to large scale development.

Conclusion The site is considered to be inappropriate for the proposed development as:-

- it is not suitable for the proposed development as site is too small; - the development of the site for retail uses would be contrary to the

emerging policy aspirations identified in the LTCM; and - the requirement to retain the listed building on site would preclude

large scale retail development.

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 7

Site 6

Location War Memorial Area incl. the Talbot and White Lion Pub – See Sequential Site Location Plan

Size 0.54 Ha

Existing Uses Both the Talbot Pub (north of Ashbourne Road) and the White Lion Pub (south of Ashbourne Road) are currently vacant.

Relationship with Town Centre

The site is edge of centre as it is adjacent to the main town centre shopping streets.

Development Plan Allocation The Talbot Pub is located within the Leek Town Centre Conservation Area.

The emerging LTCM identifies the Talbot and White Lion site for refurbished leisure and residential uses and residential flats to front a new ‘decked’ gateway parking on Ashbourne Road.

Requirements for Land Assembly

We understand that the site is within private ownership.

Physical/Development Constraints

The site is partly within/adjacent to the Leek Conservation Area. The size of the site would not accommodate the proposed scheme provisions in whole or in part. The site is divided into two parts and separated by a main road into the town centre.

Conclusion The site is considered inappropriate for the proposed development as:-

- it is not suitable for the proposed development as site is too small and poorly configured; and

- the development of the site for retail uses would be contrary to adopted Local Plan policy and the emerging policy aspirations identified in the LTCM.

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 8

Site 7

Location Smithfield Centre and Bus Station – See Sequential Site Location Plan

Size 0.74 Ha

Existing Uses The site currently accommodates a small parade of unit shops along Ashbourne Road and Haywood Street. The remainder of the site is configured to form a small shopping precinct (Smithfield Centre), with a car park to the rear. The bus station is located to the rear of the Smithfield Centre.

Relationship with Town Centre

The site is in a town centre location.

Development Plan Allocation The site is allocated under Policy S7 of the Local Plan, which states that

within Town Centre Shopping Streets permission will be granted for A1 retail uses. Proposals for non-retail uses will only be permitted where it will not create a concentration of non-shopping uses or have an adverse affect on the vitality and viability of the town centre.

The site is adjacent to the Leek Conservation Area.

The emerging LTCM identifies the site for a new leisure and arts facility and bus station plus refurbished retail at the Smithfield Centre.

Requirements for Land Assembly

The site is believed to be within mixed ownership.

Physical/Development Constraints

The site is bounded by the public highway on all sides.

There is a significant levels difference on the site from the north west to the south east.

The site is too small to accommodate the proposed development in whole or in part.

Conclusion The site is considered inappropriate for the proposed development as:- - the site is currently in active retail use (primarily as a shopping centre)

and within a mix of ownerships. The site is not available for redevelopment;

- the site is not suitable for the proposal as it is too small; and - large scale retail would not be in accordance with the Council’s

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 9

emerging policy aspirations for the site.

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 10

Site 8

Location Compton Mill Area – See Sequential Site Location Plan

Size 1.31 Ha

Existing Uses The site comprises a vacant retail unit fronting Brook Street and vacant former industrial buildings.

Relationship with Town Centre

The site is located on the southern side of Brook Street on the opposite side of the road to the main town centre shopping streets. The site is an edge of centre location.

Development Plan Allocation There is no policy allocation in the adopted Local Plan.

The emerging LTCM identifies the site for mixed use comprising housing, offices and ground floor retail, a landmark pedestrian bridge is also proposed connecting Derby Street with the Compton Mill area.

Requirements for Land Assembly

We understand that the site is within private ownership.

Physical/Development Constraints

The site is adjacent to the Leek Conservation Area to the north and west of the site. There is a significant levels difference across the site. The site currently has planning permission for sheltered housing units, retirement apartments and market apartments. There has been no visible commencement of development on site to implement this permission. The site is too small to accommodate the proposed development in whole or in part.

Conclusion The site is considered to be inappropriate for the proposed development as:-

- it is not suitable for the proposed development as the site is too small

for large scale retail; - the site has planning permission to be developed for alternative

residential uses; - the site is not considered suitable for the development given the

significant levels difference across the site; and

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 11

- large scale retail would not be in accordance with the Council’s emerging policy aspirations for the site.

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 12

Site 9

Location Pickwood Road Area – See Sequential Site Location Plan

Size 1.13 Ha

Existing Uses The site currently accommodates a large retail shopping centre (Moorlands Centre), a stand alone retail unit and car parking.

Relationship with Town Centre

The stand alone retail unit is within the main town centre shopping streets and is therefore considered a town centre location.

The remainder of the site is not within the main shopping streets and is therefore considered an edge of centre site.

Development Plan Allocation The stand alone retail unit and the units on Russell Street are allocated

under Policy S7 of the adopted Local Plan. This states that within Town Centre Shopping Streets permission will be granted for A1 retail uses. Proposals for non-retail uses will only be permitted where it will not create a concentration of non-shopping uses or have an adverse affect on the vitality and viability of the town centre.

There are no other policy allocations on the site.

The emerging LTCM identifies the site for new retail streets over a gateway car park accessed off Brook Street and a new square linked to Derby Street with associated retail and café frontages.

Requirements for Land Assembly

We understand that the site is within mixed ownership and is not currently available.

Physical/Development Constraints

The site is bounded by the rear of the retail unit properties of Derby Street, Russell Street and St Edward Street. The site is adjacent to the Leek Conservation Area to the north and west of the site. There is a significant levels difference from the north of the site to the south. The site is too small to accommodate the proposed development in whole or in part.

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 13

Conclusion The site is considered to be inappropriate for the proposed development as:- - the mixed ownership of the site means that it is not available for

development; - it is not suitable for the proposed development as the site is too small

for large scale retail; - the site is not considered suitable for the development given the

significant levels difference across the site; and - large scale retail would not be in accordance with the Council’s

emerging policy aspirations for the site.

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 14

Site 10

Location Former Broad Street Garage – See Sequential Site Location Plan

Size 0.1Ha

Existing Uses The site was formerly in use as a garage. The site has been levelled and currently lies vacant.

Relationship with Town Centre

The site is located approximately 50 – 70 metres to the south of the town centre main shopping streets and is considered an edge of centre location.

Development Plan Allocation There is no policy allocation for the site in the adopted Local Plan.

The LTCM identifies the site for small scale retail at ground floor and offices above.

Requirements for Land Assembly

We understand that the site is in private ownership.

Physical/Development Constraints

The size of the site is not large enough to accommodate the proposed development in whole or in part.

Conclusion The site is considered inappropriate for the proposed development as:- - it is not suitable for the proposed development as the site is too small

for large scale retail; and - large scale retail would not be in accordance with the Council’s

emerging policy aspirations for the site.

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 15

Site 11

Location Former Kwik Fit Site, Land to the rear of St Edward Street – See Sequential Site Location Plan.

Size 0.14Ha

Existing Uses The site was formerly operated as a Kwik Fit garage. The site has been levelled and currently lies vacant,

Relationship with Town Centre

The site is in a town centre location.

Development Plan Allocation The site is allocated under Policy S7 of the adopted Local Plan, which

states that within Town Centre Shopping Streets permission will be granted for A1 retail uses. Proposals for non-retail uses will only be permitted where it will not create a concentration of non-shopping uses or have an adverse affect on the vitality and viability of the town centre.

The emerging LTCM identifies the site for residential development.

Requirements for Land Assembly

The site is believe to be in private ownership and is available for redevelopment.

Physical/Development Constraints

The size of the site is not large enough to accommodate the proposed development in whole or in part.

Conclusion The site is considered inappropriate for the proposed development as:- - it is not suitable for the proposed development as the site is too small

for large scale retail; and - large scale retail would not be in accordance with the Council’s

emerging policy aspirations for the site.

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 16

Site 12

Location High Street Car Park Area – See Sequential Site Location Plan

Size 0.26 Ha

Existing Uses The site is currently a Council run car park.

Relationship with Town Centre

The site is located adjacent and opposite of the main town centre shopping streets and is considered an edge of centre location.

Development Plan Allocation The northern part of the site is located within the Leek Conservation Area.

There is no policy allocation in the adopted Local Plan.

The emerging LTCM identifies the site for decked car parking.

Requirements for Land Assembly

We understand that the site is within public ownership and is available for development.

Physical/Development Constraints

The size of the site is not large enough to accommodate the proposed development in whole or in part. The northern part of the site is located within a Conservation Area.

Conclusion The site is considered inappropriate for the proposed development as:- - it is not suitable for the proposed development as the site is too small

for large scale retail; and - large scale retail would not be in accordance with the Council’s

emerging policy aspirations for the site.

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 17

Site 13

Location Mark Street west Car Park – See Sequential Site Location Plan

Size 0.1 Ha

Existing Uses The site is currently a Council run car park.

Relationship with Town Centre

The site is in a town centre location.

Development Plan Allocation The site is allocated under Policy S7 of the adopted Local Plan, which

states that within Town Centre Shopping Streets permission will be granted for A1 retail uses. Proposals for non-retail uses will only be permitted where it will not create a concentration of non-shopping uses or have an adverse affect on the vitality and viability of the town centre.

The emerging LTCM does not identify the site for any particular use.

Requirements for Land Assembly

The site is believe to be in public ownership and is available for redevelopment.

Physical/Development Constraints

The size of the site is not large enough to accommodate the proposed development in whole or in part.

Conclusion The site is considered inappropriate for the proposed development as:- - it is not suitable for the proposed development as the site is too small

for large scale retail; and - any loss of car parking on the site is likely to be resisted by the local

authority.

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 18

Site 14

Location Existing Foxlowe Site – See Sequential Site Location Plan

Size 0.41 Ha

Existing Uses The site is made of 3 elements, with lock up garages to the rear, open space in the middle and a vacant public house use, fronting on to Church Street.

Relationship with Town Centre

The site is in a town centre location.

Development Plan Allocation The site is allocated under Policy S7 in the adopted Local Plan, which

states that within Town Centre Shopping Streets permission will be granted for A1 retail uses. Proposals for non-retail uses will only be permitted where it will not create a concentration of non-shopping uses or have an adverse affect on the vitality and viability of the town centre.

The hotel part of the site is located within the Leek Conservation Area.

The emerging LTCM identifies the site for refurbishment with heritage, leisure and office uses and new residential element to the north with links to Brough Park.

Requirements for Land Assembly

The site is believed to be within mixed ownership.

Physical/Development Constraints

The public house element of the building is located within a Conservation Area.

There is a significant levels difference across the site.

There configuration of the site in terms of its long rectangular shape would make it difficult to accommodate large scale retail.

The size of the site is not large enough to accommodate the proposed development in whole and in part.

Conclusion The site is considered to be inappropriate for the proposed development as:-

- it is not suitable for the proposed development as the site is too small

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 19

for large scale retail; - the site is not considered suitable for the development given the

significant levels difference across the site; and - large scale retail would not be in accordance with the Council’s

emerging policy aspirations for the site.

SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LTD – CHURNET WORKS, LEEK

SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

January 2010 20

Site 15

Location Premier Garage – See Sequential Site Location Plan

Size 0.48 ha

Existing Uses The site is currently in use as a car sales showroom for Volkswagen.

Relationship with Town Centre

The site is located approximately 100 – 150 metres to the south west of the main town centre shopping street and considered an edge of centre location.

Development Plan Allocation There is no policy allocation for the site in the adopted Local Plan.

The emerging LTCM identifies the site for potential use as traditional housing and flats.

Requirements for Land Assembly

We understand that the site is within private ownership.

Physical/Development Constraints

The size of the site is not large enough to accommodate the proposed development in whole or part.

Conclusion The site is considered inappropriate for the proposed development as:- - it is not suitable for the proposed development as the site is too small

for large scale retail; and - large scale retail would not be in accordance with the Council’s

emerging policy aspirations for the site.

TURLEYASSOCIATESClient:Project:Title:Reference:Date:Scale:

25 Savile RowLondonW1S 2ES

T: 020 7851 4010F: 020 7851 4020

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets LtdChurnet Works, LeekSequential Site Location Plan SAIL2044/SSLPJanuary 2010NTS

BELFAST 028 9089 7400

BIRMINGHAM 0121 233 0902

BRISTOL 0117 989 7000

EDINBURGH 0131 557 1099

GLASGOW 0141 248 9233

LEEDS 0113 386 3800

LONDON 020 7851 4010

MANCHESTER 0161 831 1300

SOUTHAMPTON 023 8072 4888

www.turleyassociates.co.uk