2.2 The application has been called in for consideration by Planning Committee by Councillor Knight on the grounds that:

Report to: Planning Committee 22nd October 2015 Report of: Development Services Manager Subject: APPLICATION P15L0290: RECONFIGURATION OF EXISTING RETAIL UNIT (INCLUDING PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ADDITIONAL FLOORSPACE, SUBDIVISION, EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS); RECONFIGUARION OF CAR PARK, SERVICE YARDS AND OTHER ASSOCIATED WORKS AT THE FORMER HOMEBASE SITE, BATH ROAD 1. Decision Required 1.1 The Development Services Manager recommends that the Planning Committee is minded to grant planning permission, subject to no objections being raised by consultees upon the expiry date of the consultation period on the 23 rd October that have not been addressed within this report and the decision to be delegated to the Development Services Manager in conjunction with the Chair of Planning Committee, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list. 2. Background 2.1 The application was submitted on 1 st July 2015 and the period for determination expired on 26 th August 2015. 2.2 The application has been called in for consideration by Planning Committee by Councillor Knight on the grounds that: The proximity of the proposed new loading/delivery bay is unacceptably close to domestic dwellings and, should consent be given, will be a source of noise disturbance as well as visual and light pollution and will bring HGV diesel exhaust fumes unacceptably close to the rear gardens of the nearby properties. 3. The Site and Surrounding Area 3.1 The application site is the former Homebase retail unit which has been vacant since May 2014. The application site lies within the City of Worcester development boundary on a strategic route into the city with the only access being directly off the A38. 3.2 Residential properties adjoin the northern boundary of the site which overlook the external yard area which was the former garden centre area of the retail store. Land immediately to the west is used as a caravan park leading down to moorings on the River Severn. Areas to the north and east are primarily residential in character. A pub / restaurant with car parking is located to the south of the site, with a further similar facility located just to the north east on the opposite side of the A38. 3.3 As such, the site is considered to lie in an out of centre location in retail planning policy terms. The nearest defined centre to the application site is the St Peter s Neighbourhood Shopping Centre, which is centrally located in the residential area. It has a large A1 superstore and a variety of smaller units.

3.4 The site comprises a 2,958 sq. m. retail unit (Class A1), occupied most recently by Homebase. There is no restriction on the type of goods permitted to be sold on this site within the A1 use class or a restriction under the terms of the new consolidated legislation (The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015) which could restrict it to other permitted uses. 3.5 The site is designated Green Network as per policy NE9 as within the City of Worcester Local Plan 2004. The site is not within a conservation area and is not adjacent to any listed building. There are no other relevant constraints. 4. The Proposals 4.1 The application relates to the subdivision of the existing store to facilitate two retailers to use the existing building. The enabling development is to remove the existing two storey front offices and facilities and erect a ground floor extension. 4.2 The larger store on the northern area of the site seeks permission to install a loading bay to allow for deliveries. The loading bay is proposed to be sunk into the ground to allow for a level threshold of stock directly into the store within a covered area. 4.3 The smaller store proposes to re-site the existing main roller shutter which serves the existing loading area to the far south western corner. 4.4 The proposed use will continue to be Class A1 retail and there is an existing permission for this use on the site. Consequently, the subdivision and the internal function of the site are not for consideration. However, the changes to the external appearance, the change to car park layout including vehicle delivery and its access are subject to consideration. Also, due to the floor area created by the additional loading bay means the impact of this additional area of the site is to be considered. 4.5 The revised Planning Statement indicates that the proposed opening times are 0630-2300 Monday to Saturday and delivery times are 0630 2200 Monday to Saturday, and on Sundays/Bank Holidays delivery times would be 0800 to 2000 and opening hours would be for 6 hours between 1000 to 1800. 4.6 The proposals would also increase the car parking capacity to 150 spaces and includes additional disabled car parking spaces. The access and internal layout has been revised to accommodate the loading bay on the northern unit and the associated vehicular movements. 4.7 The application also seeks to alter the existing service area in line with the amended function and subdivision of the store. The existing loading area will be reduced for Unit B (the southern unit) with an estimate of 1 delivery per day (possibly 2 at Christmas time) and the northern store (Aldi) that would be served by up to 3 deliveries per day within a purpose built service yard to the northern side of the site. This is proposed to include a 3 metre acoustic barrier to the loading bay. 5. Policies 5.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ( the Act ) establishes the legislative framework for consideration of this application. Section 70(2) of the Act requires the decision-maker in determining planning applications/appeals to have regard to the Development Plan, insofar as it is material to the application/appeal, and to any other material consideration.

Where the Development Plan is material to the development proposal it must therefore be taken into account. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the application/appeal to be determined in accordance with the Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 5.2 On 24th April 2013 the Secretary of State laid in Parliament a statutory instrument to revoke the Regional Strategy for the West Midlands, which came into force on 20th May 2013 (The Regional Strategy for the West Midlands (Revocation) Order 2013 (S.I. 2013/933)). This legislation also revoked all Directions which had previously saved policies of the Worcestershire Structure Plan. As a consequence, the Development Plan for Worcester now comprises: The saved policies of the City of Worcester Local Plan (1996-2011), which was adopted on 8 October 2004. The Worcester Balance Housing Market Development Plan Document, which was adopted on11 December 2007 The Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, which was adopted on 15 December 2012 The saved policies of the County of Hereford and Worcester Minerals Local Plan, which was adopted in April 1997. City of Worcester Local Plan 1996 2011 5.3 The City of Worcester Local Plan, together with the Balanced Housing Market Development Plan Document is the Development Plan for the area. The Local Plan was adopted in 2004 and only intended to cover the period for 1996 2011 and provide for development for that period. It will in due course be replaced with the new South Worcestershire Development Plan. In 2007 a number of policies were saved. The following saved policies of the City of Worcester Local Plan are considered to be relevant to the proposal:- BE1 Environmental Standards for Development BE2 Character and appearance of the City BE21 Development within Archaeologically Sensitive Areas NE7 Landscaping scheme NE9 The Green Network SH1 Large Scale Retail Development outside the Central Shopping Area and St John s District Centre TR2 Footpath/Cycleway Private Development TR4 Cycle Parking TR12 Car Parking Standards for New Development TR14 Financial Contributions from Developments to Meet Travel Demands TR23 Green Transport Plans App 1 Recommended Standards for On-Site Car Parking and Recommended Cycle Parking Standards 5.4 The site is shown on the Proposals Map of the adopted City of Worcester Local Plan as unallocated land although it benefits currently from Class A1 use (restricted to the sale of bulky comparison goods). Saved policy SH1 relates to large scale out-ofcentre retail development. It aims to protect the vitality and viability of the district, local and neighbourhood centres. It states that new large scale retail development outside of the defined centres will not be permitted unless the following criteria are met:

That there is a demonstrable need; That the sequential approach has been followed; That there would be no adverse impact on any centre, either on its own or cumulatively; and It is accessible by a variety of means of transport. 5.5 The current local plan covers the period to 2011 and so is out-of-date. The fact that a Local Plan policy has been saved does not automatically reduce the weight it carries: rather, the question of weight will depend on the degree of its consistency with the policies of the NPPF, as confirmed in NPPF 215. As stated above, many of the Local Plan policies are saved, albeit not all fully consistent with the NPPF and, more generally, the Local Plan policies were obviously not prepared having regard to the current development needs of the City; these are being assessed through the emerging plan. The weight to attach to the Local Plan is limited accordingly. 5.6 Adopted Supplementary Planning Documents of relevance include: Accessibility (2012). There is also adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance of relevance, namely SPG4: Lighting. Material Considerations 1. National Planning Policy Framework 5.7 Notwithstanding the above, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) comprises national planning guidance which is relevant in the determination of this application. The Framework was published in March 2012 and replaced all former national planning policies, except for Planning Policy Statement 10: Waste. The Framework sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It sets out the Government's requirements for the planning system only to the extent that is relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so. All the policies in the Framework constitute Government's view of what sustainable development in England means in practice. Economic, social and environmental improvement should be sought jointly and simultaneously. 5.8 In relation to the specific policies, paragraph 23 of the NPPF sets out the objective to ensure the vitality of town centres. Paragraph 24 sets out the sequential test in relation to main town centre uses and paragraph 26 the requirement for formal impact assessment for proposals above 2,500 sq.m m or any local threshold. The proposal is below the threshold for an impact assessment under the NPPF but above the local threshold of 1000 sq.m m. Paragraph 27 states that where an application fails either the sequential or impact tests planning permission should be refused. 5.9 The NPPF goes on to outline a series of considerations against which delivering sustainable development should be assessed. In terms of the proposed development these are: Chapter 1: Building a Strong, Competitive Economy The planning system should do everything it can to support sustainable economic growth and significant weight should be afforded to this. Planning polices should recognise and seek to address potential barriers to investment. Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of employment sites where there is no reasonable prospect of it being used for that purpose.

Proposals for alternative uses should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities; Chapter 2: Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres Local Planning Authorities should promote competitive town centres which provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer. The sequential test applies for main town centre uses which are not in an existing centre. Where there are no central sites available, accessible edge of centre sites may be considered. In addition, applications for retail development over 2,500 sq.m outside of town centres should be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment; Chapter 4: Promoting Sustainable Transport Development should reduce the need to travel and make use of sustainable / low carbon transport options. Developments which will generate significant amounts of movement should be accompanied by a Transport Assessment. Policies should aim for a mix of uses within an area, including retail, to minimise the need for travel. Local Planning Authorities are provided with the power to set their own car parking standards; Chapter 7: Requiring Good Design Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and is indivisible from good planning. High quality and inclusive design for all development should be sought, including individual buildings and public and private spaces, through good architecture and appropriate landscaping; Chapter 8: Promoting Healthy Communities Developments should provide safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder do not undermine quality of life. They should also contain clear pedestrian routes and high quality public spaces; Chapter 10: Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change New development will be expected to minimise energy consumption. Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided; Chapter 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment Impacts on biodiversity should be minimised and net gains in biodiversity should be promoted where possible. Pollution and contamination issues should be considered in order to safeguard the amenity of future occupiers; and Chapter 12: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment Weight should be given to conserving heritage assets. Where a proposal will lead to substantial harm or total loss of a heritage asset, planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that public benefits outweigh any harm caused. 5.10 Paragraph 186 of the NPPF encourages Local Planning Authorities to approach decision taking in a positive way and to foster the delivery of sustainable development. LPAs are advised at paragraph 187 of the NPPF to look for solutions rather than problems and decision-takers are asked to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Against the background set by paragraph 187, the NPPF reiterates at paragraph 197 that when assessing and determining development proposals, LPAs should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

5.11 With regard to decision-making paragraph 214 of the Framework confirms that:- "For 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework." 5.12 Thereafter, paragraph 215 stipulates that:- "In other cases and following this 12-month period, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)." 5.13 Furthermore, paragraph 216 of the Framework states that:- From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:- the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). 5.14 However, the SWDP policies are not considered to carry full weight at this stage of the Development Plan process. 2. National Planning Practice Guidance 5.15 On 6 th March 2014 the Government also published National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) to compliment the NPPF that comprises, amongst other matters, Air quality, Design, Ensuring the vitality of town centres, Housing and economic land availability assessment, Noise, Travel plans, Transport assessments and statements in decision-taking, Flood risk and coastal change, Use of planning conditions, and Planning obligations. 5.16 With regard to retail development proposals relevant practice guidance (Ensuring the vitality of town centres) reinforces the NPPF s requirement for Out of Centre retail proposals to demonstrate acceptability in terms of sequential and impact assessments (paragraph 001). Further detail of these assessments is provided in paragraphs 010 to 018. In terms of assessing the current vitality and vibrancy of Town Centres, paragraph 006 sets out indicators against which centres health can be assessed. 3. South Worcestershire Development Plan 5.17 On 28 May 2013 the three South Worcestershire Councils, of Malvern Hills District, Wychavon District and Worcester City submitted the SWDP to the Secretary of State. The SWDP is now being examined and, to date, two stages of hearing sessions have been held by the Planning Inspector conducting the examination.

5.18 The Stage 1 hearings were held in October 2013, and again in March 2014: these hearings led to the Proposed Modifications (consulted on during October/November 2014) and related to the Inspectors recommendations in respect of the Objective Assessment of Housing Need and the additional sites that were consequently required. 5.19 In relation to housing the Inspector said that the number of homes required "is likely to be substantially higher than the 23,200 figure identified in the submitted Plan." He also ruled out some of the larger figures proposed by developers, some as high as 36,000. He asked the councils to supply further information, and they have now examined updated estimates on likely economic growth and job creation across South Worcestershire up to 2030. Reconvened Stage 1 hearing sessions took place on 13th and 14th March 2014 and the Inspector's letter to the 3 Councils setting out his further interim conclusions was published on 3rd April 2014. 5.20 The Stage 2 hearings took place between February 2015 and June 2015 and considered the strategy underpinning the SWDP, the development management policies and the site allocations. These hearings have now fed into proposed "Main Modifications" that have been published by the councils. On Tuesday 22 September 2015 (Malvern Hills) and Wednesday 30 September 2015 (Wychavon and Worcester City) at Council meetings, all three South Worcestershire Councils approved a schedule of Main Modifications as the basis for public consultation, which will run from 9 th October to 20 th November 2015. 5.21 The Main Modifications now presented for consultation have arisen from the Stage 2 hearings at which the Inspector holistically considered the SWDP, taking into account his findings in Stage 1. It is considered by the councils that these Main Modifications are required in order to meet the tests of soundness and legal compliance. The consultation only relates to the Main Modifications and not to other aspects of the Submitted Plan. 5.22 After the close of the consultation, representations received in response to the Main Modifications will be collated by the South Worcestershire Councils and forwarded to the Inspector. The Inspector will consider all the valid responses made to this consultation, together with those made during the previous consultations on the Proposed Submission version of the SWDP (January to February 2013) and the Proposed Modifications (October to November 2014). Following the Main Modifications consultation, the Inspector s final recommendations will be made in a report to the South Worcestershire Councils. 5.23 Emerging policies of relevance to this development proposal are as follows: SWDP1: Overarching Sustainable Development Principles South Worcestershire Local Authorities will take a positive approach to new development proposals which reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined in the NPPF. They will always work jointly and proactively with applicants to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved where possible. Planning applications which accord with the policies of the SWDP will be approved unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where proposals do not accord with the policies of the SWDP, the Local Authority will work with the applicant to mitigate adverse impacts and identify sustainable solutions.

SWDP3: Employment, Housing and Retail Provision, Requirement and Delivery Provision will be made for 50,000 sq. m of net retail floorspace during the plan period, with 28,000 sq. m in Worcester City. SWDP4: Moving Around South Worcestershire Locations for development should minimise demand for travel offer sustainable travel choices and improve road safety. Travel Plans are required for all major developments and should demonstrate measures to reduce the need for travel by private cars and promote cycling, walking and public transport. Locally determined car parking standards will apply to all development proposals. SWDP6: Historic Environment Development proposals should conserve and enhance the historic environment. SWDP8: Providing the Right Land and Buildings for Jobs Existing employment land and buildings will be considered for alternative uses where: details of appropriate marketing can be demonstrated for at least two years; the redevelopment for employment use is unviable; the proposed alternative use would deliver a clear community benefit; the proposed use would be compatible with adjacent users. SWDP 9 - supports new retail development which contributes to the vision of South Worcestershire as a high quality sustainable network of urban and rural settlements. Proposals for retail or leisure facilities will need to demonstrate that they are: 1. Meeting an identified need, including the needs of disadvantaged rural and urban communities and those of the growing population of south Worcestershire; 2. Not detrimental to the settlement / retail hierarchy set out in SWDP 2; 3. Increasing the quality and range of shopping available in the centres, as well as contributing to a comfortable, safe, attractive and accessible environment SWDP10: Protection and Promotion of Shopping Choice states that development that is appropriate in scale, helps to retain a centre s market share and enhances the shopping experience will be supported. Retail development that undermines the vitality / viability of a centre or compromises the retail or settlement hierarchy will not be supported. The policy defines St John s as a district centre, St Peter s and Ankerage Green (Warndon) as Local Centres and London Road as a local centre. Any retail development in excess of 1,000 sq. m located outside of defined centres will require a Retail Impact Assessment. Retail development for proposals outside of centres will not be granted permission unless: the scale of development is appropriate to the location and host community; the development would not have an adverse impact on the viability or vitality of an existing centre; access by all travel modes is safe and convenient, particularly bus, cycle and walking; the proposal provides other benefits including regeneration, employment and /or social aspects; and the development conserves and enhances the heritage interest of the proposed location.

SWDP13: Effective Use of Land To deliver sustainable development, the most effective and sustainable use of land will be sought, including through the reuse of previously developed land. SWDP21: Design All new development will be expected to be of high quality design and integrate effectively with its surroundings. Consideration should be given to siting and layout; relationships to surroundings and other developments; open spaces; mix of uses; sustainability and energy performance; scale, form and massing; links connectivity and access; detailed design and materials; appropriate facilities; landscaping and biodiversity; public realm; creating a safe environment; and advertisements. SWDP22: Biodiversity and Geodiversity All new development must be designed to enhance biodiversity and geodiveristy. SWDP27: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy All new development in excess of 100 sq m will be required to produce 10% of their energy from renewable or low carbon sources. An energy statement must be submitted as part of a planning application to demonstrate that this target has been met. SWDP31: Pollution Development proposals must not be sited where land is contaminated and not capable of appropriate remediation without compromising development viability or the delivery of sustainable development. SWDP33: Waste In order to minimise waste and pollution, proposals for new development should incorporate adequate waste facilities into the design. 5.24 Policies SWDP 9 and 10 are clearly in accordance with the NPPF and are not significantly different, in the context of this report, to those of the adopted Local Plan. All the policies are supportive of existing centres, and establish the sequential approach to site selection and the impact of the proposed development on existing centres as the main retail planning considerations. The main food stores in the city, with the exception of the Sainsbury at Blackpole, are in the identified centres and the impact of the proposal on them will be a material consideration. However, the SWDP policies have yet to be scrutinised by the EiP and therefore carry limited weight. 5.25 Notwithstanding the above, the presumption under Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that the proposal shall be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 5.26 Weight has been given by Inspectors to recent Ministerial statements, including the Planning for Growth statement. The statement, published in March 2011, declared that the government expects the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be yes, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development objectives. Decentralisation minister Greg Clark has also said that it would be a material consideration in local planning decisions with immediate effect.

Case Law 5.27 Notwithstanding the above, the presumption under Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that the proposal shall be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 5.28 Consideration of Development Plan policies is not a legalistic forensic exercise. Often policies will pull in different directions. Decision makers need to consider whether the proposal broadly accords with those policies as confirmed in the case of R. on the application of Laura Cummins and London Borough of Camden, SSETR and Barrett Homes Limited [2001] in which Ouseley J. cited R. v Rochdale MBC ex parte Milne [2000]. As Sullivan J. said in the Milne case 48. It is not at all unusual for development plan policies to pull in different directions. A proposed development may be in accord with development plan policies which, for example, encourage development for employment purposes, and yet be contrary to policies which seek to protect open countryside. In such cases there may be no clear cut answer to the question: is this proposal in accordance with the plan? The local authority has to make a judgement bearing in mind such factors as the importance of the policies which are complied with or infringed, and the extent of compliance or breach. 5.29 Citing City of Edinburgh Council v. Secretary of State for Scotland [1997] Sullivan J. went on to say that I regard it as untenable to say that if there is a breach of any one policy in a development plan, a proposed development cannot be said to be in accordance with the plan. Given the numerous conflicting interests that development plans seek to reconcile: the needs for more housing, more employment, more leisure and recreational facilities, for improved transport facilities, the protection of listed buildings and attractive landscapes et cetera, it would be difficult to find any project of any significance that was wholly in accord with every relevant policy in the development plan. Numerous applications would have to be referred to the Secretary of State as departures from the development plan because one or a few minor policies were infringed, even though the proposal was in accordance with the overall thrust of development plan policies. For the purposes of section 54A it is enough that the proposal accords with the development plan when considered as a whole. It does not have to accord with each and every policy therein. 6. Planning History 6.1 There are no previous applications that are directly relevant to the current proposals, other than the original planning permission for the construction of the store. The unit was developed following the grant of planning permission in 1988 (see below). It initially traded as Texas Homecare, before being occupied by Homebase. Planning permission P88C0283 was granted on 24 May 1988 for development of the Timberdine Depot site described as, Proposed retail DIY warehouse. The conditions attached are few and unremarkable, and relate primarily to details of the building and landscaping, and controls over construction. 6.2 Planning permission P89C0071 was granted on 9 March 1989 for development described as, Extension to DIY retail warehouse, previous application P88C0283 under construction. This extension was an amendment to the scheme allowed by the original planning permission, which in all other respects remained unaffected.

6.3 Subsequent to this a range of permissions were granted over a number of years for minor alterations to the elevational treatment, signage (fascia, totem and flagpole), fencing, automatic doors, and lighting columns. 7. Consultations 7.1 A formal consultation has been undertaken in respect of the application. The following comments from statutory and non-statutory consultees and interested third parties have been received in relation to the original and amended proposals and are summarised as follows: Worcester City Council Archaeological Officer: No objection, subject to the relevant conditions. Worcestershire Regulatory Services: The noise report submitted following a request from Regulatory Services was commissioned. The report included the erection of a 3 metre high noise barrier adjacent to the loading bay to reduce the impact on noise from this activity. This was considered acceptable with no objection to the proposal, this included proposed opening hours, the proposed delivery times, noise from all the relevant sources and the proposed measures put in place. Highway Authority: The access and egress of delivery vehicles has been amended following significant concerns from the Highway Authority. The internal arrangement within the site has been revised and amended in line with suggested good practice and the scheme is now considered to be acceptable by the Highways Authority. Crime Risk Manager, West Mercia Police: concerns regarding site security have been addressed with the inclusion in the submitted details of a 1.8 metre galvanised vertical bar gate to be included at the entrance. This specification was requested by the Crime Risk Manager and no has no objections to the scheme. Conservation Area Advisory Committee- August 2015: The Committee agreed that this would be an improvement on what was there at the moment. The Committee has no objections, recommending approval. St Peter the Great County Parish Council: have objected to the original proposal with concerns regarding highway implications including additional traffic via St Peters Lane. They have also raised wider highways issues less specific to this application. CTC & Push Bike: object on the grounds of insufficient bicycle storage provision. However, this has been increased from 5 to improved to 15 racks during the course of negotiations. Neighbours: There have been 2 general comments and 26 objections to the original proposal. The main concerns raised relate to noise and disturbance to local residents from the use of the proposed loading bay, security of the car park and the delivery times. Additional concerns are closer proximity to the site boundaries, concern regarding food waste, litter, lights from lorries affecting living environment, impact on traffic flow on A38, and lack of cycle parking, loss of trees and shrubs affecting wildlife and nesting trees. These issues have been raised for consideration as part of negotiations to be addressed and resolved or mitigated where possible.

7.2 Members have also been given the opportunity to read all representations that have been received in full. Any additional responses received will be reported to members in the form of a late paper. 7.3 In assessing the proposal due regard has been given to local residents comments as material planning considerations. Nevertheless, I am also mindful that decisions should not be made solely on the basis of the number of representations, whether they are for or against a proposal. The Localism Act has not changed this, nor has it changed the advice that local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission unless it is founded on valid planning reasons. 8. Comments of the Development Services Manager 8.1 In my opinion, the main issue raised by the proposal is whether the development would be sustainable, having regard to the 3 dimensions of sustainability set out in the Framework: economic, social and environmental, in particular with regard to: Principle of development; Design and appearance; Highway safety; Impact on residential amenity; and Impact on Green Network. These issues will now each be considered in turn. Principle of Development 8.2 The proposals relate to an existing Class A1 retail store that is proposed to be subdivided to form two Class A1 retail units, together with internal and external alterations to the layout and configuration of the site and store itself that would result in 91 sq. metres of net additional floor space. 8.3 The accompanying development includes changing the siting of the loading bay in the southern unit and a reconfiguration in the car park to accommodate the vehicular movements to both loading bays. 8.4 Whilst there is no planning control over the continued use of the site for unrestricted Class A1 retailing purpose, nevertheless it is necessary to consider the impact of the proposed alterations to the store as set out under the headings below. Design and Appearance 8.5 With regard to the proposed external alterations and extensions to the premises saved Policy BE1 of the City of Worcester Local Plan 2004 requires all development, inter alia, to achieve a high standard of design, having regard to the character of the area and to harmonise with its environment. 8.6 In terms of design and appearance I consider the proposal would be appropriate for the intended use of the building, fully accessible for all members of the community and would utilise an acceptable palette of materials. I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the expectations of local plan policy BE1 as well as national planning policy and guidance.

8.7 The design of the loading bay is such that it is lowered into the ground to allow a level threshold into the internal service area. This is part of the common operational practices of ALDI and ensures the trolleys are transferred smoothly from the HGV with minimal noise generated. The loading bay area is discretely placed to the side and due to its recessed location would not be visible from the public vantage within the car park or Barbel Crescent. Impact on Neighbouring Residents' Amenities 8.8 The main issues relate to noise, disturbance and air pollution generated by traffic movements associated with the proposal, particularly in relation to delivery vehicles. I accept that the proposal has the potential to increase vehicle movements compared to the former retailer with 3 deliveries a day proposed by ALDI and one per day to B & M and has the potential to cause an impact upon amenity. However, these aspects are largely outside the control of this application due to the established use of the site and the lack of existing control over delivery times 8.9 The scheme has been amended within the course of the application to mitigate and manage many of the potential harmful impacts of the proposal raised by the neighbouring residents. This has included altering the car park arrangement to improve the flow of the HGVs around the site and limit manoeuvring to the loading bays, acoustic barriers to the loading bay and service yard and also the external plant area (on the west elevation). Furthermore, the delivery times have been revised to 0630-2200 Monday to Saturday and 0800-2000 Sunday. 8.10 The additional documents submitted include a Service and Waste Management Plan which set out the management of the service yard area to mitigate noise and their operational standards. These include turning off engines and radios during deliveries, switching off headlights at the store to limit the generation of noise. On the suggestion of the Crime Risk Manager, gates to the entrance of the site have also been included to improve site security. 8.11 Whilst the proposals will introduce activity in closer proximity to the neighbouring residential properties, nevertheless I do not consider that these aspects of the proposal would result in an unacceptable degree of harm. Highway Safety 8.12 The existing site is on a principle route into the city in an area well served be cycle routes and pathways. I do not consider that the proposed development would generate significant amounts of additional traffic beyond the existing authorised Class A1 use. 8.13 The re-design of the internal layout of the car park has resulted in an improved flow around the car park especially at times when a delivery vehicle is accessing the relevant loading areas. The re-design was as the result of suggestions on the site visit with the Highways Officer where recommendations regarding amendments where discussed. 8.14 The cycle parking within the scheme has been improved as a result of the input of the Crime Risk Manger and CTC and Push Bike with capacity for 15 bicycles on the site.

8.15 As amended, I do not consider that the proposal will cause any detrimental impact upon the highway network in terms of the level of traffic that would be generated and that the level of proposed customer car parking for the proposed store would satisfy the operative parking standards set out in Appendix 1 of the City of Worcester Local Plan 2004. My view on this matter is reinforced by the lack of objection from the Highway Authority which will be confirmed as a late paper. As such, I consider this aspect of the proposal would be acceptable. Impact on Green Network 8.16 The site is within the Green Network and as such is subject to policy NE9 which requires development to positively contribute to the Green Network. As such, a landscaping scheme is required to ensure that where closer to the A38 it will have continued screening to the site plus in areas which have been altered as a result of the application are improved with appropriate landscaping to maintain the edge of city character on the outskirts of the site. This will be managed as a condition if not resolved prior to committee with tree planting to occur in the first season after reoccupation of the units. Conclusion 8.17 In my opinion, the proposal is acceptable in principle and in terms of design, appearance, car parking, highway safety and impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents in accordance with the aims and interests that the Development Plan, emerging SWDP and the National Planning Policy Framework seek to protect and promote in this regard. 8.18 Whilst I acknowledge that the occupation of the unit as a consequence of a different type of retail use may be more intense that the former occupation I do not consider that it is unacceptable on this site. I consider that it has the capacity to accommodate two retail units and the potential harmful impacts have been mitigated to a satisfactory degree. 9. RECOMMENDATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER: That the Planning Committee is minded to grant planning permission, subject to no objections being raised by consultees upon the expiry date of the consultation period on the 23 rd October that have not been addressed within this report and the decision to be delegated to the Development Services Manager in conjunction with the Chair of Planning Committee, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list. Ward: St Peter s Contact Officer: Sally Watts Tel: 01905 722172 Tel 01905 722172