view - Breckland Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5.14 All of the above are, as we say, a cause for concern in land use planning terms and warrant action; namely improved and increase food shopping choice in Thetford with the aim of improving retention rates. 5.15 From NLP’s 2010 work the TAAP makes comment on the need for additional food floorspace provision in Thetford over the plan period. In particular:- That the 2010 Study suggested less capacity than the earlier 2007 Study. What capacity there is should be directed to the new urban extension in the form of a small local supermarket. Any residual capacity (estimated at 330m² (net) convenience floorspace should be directed to the town centre. 5.16 Against this emerging policy background it is worth noting that:- Retail capacity or ‘need’ no longer forms part of the policy test for retail proposals at national level. The capacity estimates are based on maintaining/not increasing market share. In short, the capacity estimate presumes Thetford will continue to retain just 65% of the available spend from Zone 1. 5.17 In respect of the second point above, it is highly significant that Thetford and Zone 1 achieves a very low overall retention rate when compared against other zones and centres. So:- Within Zone 2 (Dereham) - 78% of residents do their convenience shopping in Dereham. In Zone 3 - 79% of residents do their food shopping in either Swaffham or Dereham. In Zone 4 - 88% of residents do their food shopping in Dereham, Swaffham or Watton. 5.18 In our opinion Thetford should positively plan to increase its market share. By doing so it will retain shoppers in the town, which can only be to the benefit of other retailers in the town. Secondly, it will help to reduce unsustainable shopping trips to more distant towns (e.g. Diss). 5.19 We consider Thetford should strive to achieve food shopping retention rates closer to those achieved across the other zones (i.e. 75% to 85%). Doing so would increase retail capacity. For example, if Thetford were to achieve the lowest of the above retention rates (78%) it would suggest a further £13.30M (2008 prices) of capacity at 2016. Former Tulip Factory Site, London Road/Caxton Way, Thetford Page 24 Retail & Planning Statement, February 2012
6 SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT 6.1 As identified in Policy EC14.3 of PPS4 (see Section 4 of this Statement) a sequential assessment is required for all planning applications for main town centre uses (in out-of-centre locations) (over 200m²) that are not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan. Policy EC17 of PPS4 goes on to establish that such planning applications should be refused where the applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach. 6.2 As such, a thorough sequential assessment has been undertaken in respect of the application proposals and this has had specific regard both to the requirements set out in PPS4 and the advice given in ‘Planning for Town Centres: Practice Guidance on Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach’ (December 2009). Consistent with the advice of PPS4 we have assessed each of the sites against the tests of availability, suitability and viability as potential alternative locations for the proposed foodstore. In doing so we have had due regard to the PPS’s advice on the need to also show flexibility. a) The Search Area 6.3 The DCLG’s Practice Guidance identifies that the first stage of the sequential assessment is to establish an area of search; it comments, at paragraph 6.22, that: “When considering applications, LPAs will need to consider the extent of the catchment area likely to be served by the proposal, and to then identify alternative sites located in existing centres within the catchment area. This will determine whether sites in other nearby centres may represent more appropriate locations in which to accommodate the scale and form of development proposed.” 6.4 The extent of the study area is shown on the plan enclosed at Document 2 and described in detail in the preceding Section; it essentially comprises Zone 1 of the NLP Study. As agreed with Officers, the sequential assessment only considers sites (or vacant units) within, or on the edge, of Thetford town centre (as the ‘Key Centre for Development and Change’). b) Flexibility and the Scope for Disaggregation 6.5 Policy EC15.1 of PPS4 requires that, in considering sites in or on the edge of existing centres, developers and operators demonstrate flexibility in terms of the scale of their proposals, their format; car parking provision; and the scope for disaggregation. It is, however, recognised in that policy (and reiterated at paragraph 6.30 of the Practice Guidance) that in the case of a single retailer or leisure operator, it is not the purpose of national policy to require development to be split into separate sites where flexibility in their business model and the scope for disaggregation has been demonstrated. Our assessment has had regard to this advice. 6.6 This said, it is important to recognise that there is a critical mass or size of foodstore that must be achieved if it is to compete with and offer a realistic alternative to the other main foodstores, where residents are currently choosing to do their main food shop. If the foodstore is too small it simply will not provide a realistic alternative option. This would run counter to the Government’s long held support for Former Tulip Factory Site, London Road/Caxton Way, Thetford Page 25 Retail & Planning Statement, February 2012
Page 1 and 2: THE FORMER TULIP FACTORY SITE, LOND
Page 3 and 4: 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This Retail Stat
Page 5 and 6: 2 RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND a) Si
Page 7 and 8: petrol filling station, car parking
Page 9 and 10: excluded groups). iii. The historic
Page 11 and 12: area, taking account of current and
Page 13 and 14: . It will not undermine the functio
Page 15 and 16: The TAAP allocates some 40 hectares
Page 17 and 18: 4 EMPLOYMENT LAND 4.1 As outlined i
Page 19 and 20: Existing Vacant Employment Space at
Page 21 and 22: 4.14 The adopted Breckland Core Str
Page 23 and 24: 5 EXISTING SHOPPING PATTERNS 5.1 In
Page 25: 5.9 For the secondary catchment are
Page 29 and 30: Viability - whether there is a reas
Page 31 and 32: 7 RETAIL IMPACT 7.1 In this section
Page 33 and 34: 7.14 The appearance of the foodstor
Page 35 and 36: ii. The Impact of the Proposal on T
Page 37 and 38: of 2016. This is consistent with on
Page 39 and 40: They are out-of-centre stores and t
Page 41 and 42: Neither of the supermarkets will ex
Page 43 and 44: 8 CONCLUSIONS 8.1 The proposed deve
Page 45 and 46: PLANNING HISTORY SCHEDULE Ref No. P
Page 48 and 49: SITE 1: COMMUNITY HALL, WELL STREET
Page 50 and 51: SITE 3: BRIDGE STREET CAR PARK AND
Page 52 and 53: SITE 5: TANNER STREET CAR PARK, THE
Page 54 and 55: Overview of Thetford Town Centre TH
Page 56 and 57: Services/Facilities The centre is w
Page 58 and 59: Photograph 5: Comparisons in pedest
Page 60 and 61: through £millions of investment.
Page 62 and 63: WILKINGSONS VACANT OTHER BUILDING V
Page 64 and 65: THETFORD TOWN CENTRE RETAIL SCHEDUL
Page 66 and 67: Retailer Address Description Use Cl
Page 68 and 69: Retailer Address Description Use Cl
Page 70: APPENDIX 3
Page 73 and 74: Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 10-
Page 75 and 76: Appeal Decision APP/ M1710/A/10/214
Page 77 and 78:
Appeal Decision APP/ M1710/A/10/214
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
show all

view - Breckland Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?