Agenda item

To consider planning application 22/0037 for the erection of a single storey convenience store and provision of associated parking and landscaping following demolition of existing petrol station and convenience store.

The Planning Committee considered application number 22/0037 for the erection of a single storey convenience store and provision of associated parking and landscaping following demolition of the existing petrol station and convenience store at Anchorsholme Service Station, 332 Fleetwood Road, Blackpool.

Ms S Parker, Head of Development Management outlined the report and provided a summary of the application and details of the proposal and noted that the existing retail unit had a floor space of 161 square metres and the proposed new unit would have a floor space of 490 square metres, which was approximately three times bigger. The application site was located on the edge of the defined Anchorsholme Lane local centre, however this did not fall within a defined shopping area.

The Committee was advised that paragraph 20 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy CS4 of the local plan required a proposal such as the proposed development to be located in accordance with a sequential test. Preference was given to in-centre locations, edge-of-centre locations, and then to out-of-centre sites. Although the applicant had submitted a sequential appraisal in support of the proposal, the appraisal only considered the nearby Anchorsholme Lane local centre and Cleveleys town centre. No justification for limited the area of search to the northern part of the town had been given and the Committee was reminded that the identity of the end-retailer was not a material planning consideration.

Ms Parker advised that it was the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that no suitable, available, and sequentially preferable alternative sites were available. Planning Officers considered that this had not been satisfactorily demonstrated and that there may be sites capable of accommodating the proposed development within designated shopping centres elsewhere in the borough. As these had not been considered by the applicant’s assessment, the sequential test had not been passed.

Ms Parker noted that the applicant had not undertaken an impact appraisal and existing convenience shopping provision already existed within the local centre in the form of a Lidl supermarket and a McColl’s convenience store. Both of these stores could be affected detrimentally by the proposed application and the Committee was advised that the application had not carried out an assessment of this potential impact.

The site fell within flood zone 3 and a sequential test applied to any development within flood zones with the order of preference given to development within zones 1 and 2 before development in flood zone 3 could be permitted. Ms Parker advised the Committee that the applicant had not undertaken a sequential appraisal in relation to flood risk.

Ms Parker noted that the applicant had contacted Committee members in respect of the benefits of the application, however, Planning Officers remained of the opinion that their letter did not raise any substantive new points had not already been addressed in the report or were not already in the public domain. Although the scheme would result in job creation and economic development, this did not weigh sufficiently in favour of the proposal to outweigh the harm that would arise from unjustified retail development outside of a defined shopping area. The Committee was reminded that whilst all applications should be considered on their own merits, an approval would make it harder for the Council to resist similar schemes in similar circumstances, further undermining the Council’s approach to safeguard the town centre.

The applicant was of the view that that other land uses would not be viable on the site due to anticipated remediation costs arising from land contamination, however these costs had not been quantified and therefore Officers were of the view that a substantive viability case had not been presented. The site was brownfield and in a relatively prominent position and although re-development of the site would represent effective use of the land, this could be achieved through other policy-compliant forms of development and no evidence had been submitted to demonstrate that these other forms of development had been explored. Ms Parker advised the Committee that the benefits of re-using the site as proposed did not sufficiently override the harm that could be caused by undermining the Council’s approach to safeguarding the established retail hierarchy and managing flood risk.

Ms Parker acknowledged that whilst the scheme, the design and level of parking provision was considered acceptable and that residential amenity and highway safety, ecology, drainage and flood risk could be adequately safeguarded through condition, the proposed scheme remained unacceptable in principle for the reasons set out in the officer report and as such the Committee was respectfully recommended to refuse planning permission.

Mr N Tongue spoke in favour of the application on behalf of the applicant and advised the Committee that the site currently housed a struggling petrol station and the applicant was preparing to invest £2.5million in the site, which would include demolition costs. Development of the site would avoid it being vacant in the long-term and prevent any less-desirable use of the site. In addition the development would create 25 jobs and support economic development of the area, which was supported by the National Planning Policy Framework and emerging planning policy.

Mr Tongue advised the Committee that the proposals included five electric vehicle charging points with the potential for more which could help the Council to meet its ‘Net Zero’ targets with respect to carbon emissions. A comprehensive sequential assessment had been carried out which was robust and had been carried out in accordance with prevailing case law. The applicant considered the submitted flood risk sequential assessment to be acceptable and the Environment Agency had not noted any concerns. Mr Tongue drew the Committee’s attention to Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act and respectfully requested that the Committee approved the application.

The Committee discussed the application and the proximity of the nearby Lidl. Ms Parker clarified the shopping area boundaries were clearly defined and there were no proposals to change these.

Resolved:

That planning permission is refused for the following reasons:

1.      The scheme proposes the development of a convenience store which is a main town centre use and no satisfactory evidence has been provided to demonstrate that it complies with the retail sequential test or would not have a significant adverse impact upon the health of existing centres. As such the proposals are considered to undermine the retail hierarchy of the established designated centres and prejudice the Council’s regeneration aims to strengthen the role, vitality, and viability of the town’s designated centres. The scheme would therefore be contrary to Policy CS4 of the Blackpool Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy 2012-2027, Policies BH14 and BH16 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2001-2016, and Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.      The scheme proposes development within Flood Zone 3 and no satisfactory evidence has been provided to demonstrate that it complies with the flood risk sequential test. As such, the proposals are considered to undermine the Council’s efforts to manage impacts of flooding and direct new development to areas of lowest flood risk. The scheme would therefore be contrary to Policy CS9 of the Blackpool Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy 2012-2027 and Section 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework.