1. Scope of
Evidence
1.1 In this evidence I
will deal with points raised
by Mr Michael Beese and Mr Tony Morpeth in their submissions on
behalf of Somerfield Stores Ltd. in so far as they relate to the
planning permission issued for the redevelopment of the Southgate
area (Application Ref. 97/01019/FUL)(CDs Vol 4 and 5.8)
2. Lack of
Planning Certainty
2.1
In his paragraph 3.2, Mr Beese states that I had indicated to him
that the permission granted for the Scheme “was in effect closer to
an outline than a detailed permission”. I believe that he may have
misunderstood what I said to him at that time.
2.2
The application is a full application supported by a considerable
amount of information and plans to a significant level of detail.
The material submitted was no different from that which is normally
provided for a scheme of this scope, and indeed, exceeded it in
that large scale detailed drawings were submitted. In schemes of
this range and complexity the preparation of detailed drawings
proceeds hand in hand with the development of the structural
solution. The approved plans are such that there is no doubt as to
what is intended and what has been approved.
2.3
In this case, the LPA were satisfied that adequate detail had been
provided for a permission to be issued and that, given the scale of
the development proposed, it would not be reasonable, nor was it
necessary, for further detailed plans to be submitted before the
permission could be issued.
2.4
However, the proposed buildings are mainly concrete and steel
framed structures clad in stone or, in the case of the proposed bus
station, to be clad in metal and glass in a modern style. In both
cases, the intended design is clear and fully acceptable to the
LPA. It is the fine detail and specification of the buildings
and landscaping that will ensure that a high quality scheme is
realised.
2.5
The Conditions referred to by Mr Beese in his paragraph 3.5 were
therefore imposed to ensure that, as they require, “constructional
and architectural details” of the approved designs, not alternative
design proposals, are provided for approval before construction
begins.
2.6
Condition 23 is designed to enable the LPA to ensure that although
the buildings will be stone clad and not of structurally supporting
stonework they will not appear as such and will be both convincing
and correctly detailed given the classical style chosen by the
applicants.
2.7
Similarly, Condition 24 seeks to enable the LPA to ensure that the
detailing and construction of the bus station building is of the
quality shown on the approved plans and that the WPD switchgear
building is appropriately detailed.
2.8
It is not expected that the submissions required by these
conditions will propose any significant deviation from the approved
plans and I therefore anticipate that approval of the detailing
will, contrary to Mr Beese’s assertion in his paragraph 3.3, be
straightforward.
2.9
With regard to the Conditions referred to in paragraph 3.7 of Mr
Beese’s submission I would comment as follows:
· Condition 31: This
condition was imposed because at that time the constraints on the
design of the wall imposed by the operational requirements of the
bus station, access to the river wall by the Environment Agency and
concerns expressed by WPD regarding security and maintenance in
relation to their substation had not been fully resolved. The
principle of a screen wall along the river frontage had however
been established and agreed and it was considered acceptable by the
LPA that approval of the detailed construction and materials for
this small but important element of the Scheme could be left for
later approval. Since then, further discussions have taken place
between the various parties and I have no reason to doubt that an
acceptable proposal will be submitted for approval in accordance
with this condition.
· Condition 33: This
condition was necessary because it had not been possible to clearly
determine whether the southern entrance to the train station could
be re-opened due to processes that needed to be followed by Network
Rail. This would affect the use and layout of the forecourts,
particularly as regards the location of parking for disabled
people. Again, the principle of the need for the re-modelling of
the forecourts has been agreed and approved. These works are not
expected to take place until well into the construction period
giving ample time for the details to be resolved.
· Condition 35: This
condition relates to Condition 24, which I have already dealt with,
and refers to a specific detail of the bus station building where
the final form of the feature had not been resolved. Discussions
have taken place with the applicants architects on this since the
permission was issued and I do not anticipate that agreement on
this element of the building will be a problem.
2.10 With
regard to the statements in Mr Beese’s paragraph 3.8 the permission
is clearly a full planning permission and it is only specific
elements of the approved Scheme that have not been agreed for the
reasons I have explained. I do not consider that the requirements
of the conditions cited create any lack of planning certainty in
this case.
2.11 Mr
Beese, in his paragraph 3.4, asserts that there are eighteen
conditions that constrain the implementation of the approved
Scheme. However, only two of these conditions require compliance
before the start of any development on site. Based on current
phasing proposals a further ten require compliance early in the
development process but would not prevent the development
commencing.
2.12 In
his paragraph 3.6, Mr Beese indicates that nothing, as regards the
conditions, has been approved and that there is still a lot of work
to be done. In fact, discussions have taken place between the LPA
and the Applicants architects regarding this and draft programmes
for the compliance with all the conditions and the terms of the
Planning Agreement (CD 5.7) have been prepared and submitted
to the LPA for its consideration. Plans and proposed constructional
details have now been submitted informally to the LPA as part of
this process. I have no reason to doubt that the requirements of
the two conditions I have referred to can be satisfied in the near
future and that compliance with the remainder will follow prior to
and during the development as appropriate. The same applies to the
clause in the Planning Agreement, referred to by Mr Beese in his
paragraph 3.10, which requires compliance before the start of
development on site.
2.13 In
paragraphs 3.22 and 3.23, Mr Beese, and paragraph 3.4, Mr Morpeth,
state that uncertainty is created by the lack of detail regarding
the office, leisure and housing elements of the Scheme.
2.14 The
planning application contains full details of these elements of the
proposals although I would, for clarity, point out that the office
content is very small, being limited to ancillary offices for the
bus station and ongoing management of the Scheme. Conditions
imposed on the permission and clauses in the Planning Agreement
secure and control the implementation of the housing. For example,
Condition 10 stipulates that “No occupation of any of the
commercial units within each of Blocks A, B, C and D shall take
place until all the residential units in each individual block have
been provided …” and Clause 1 Schedule 1 and Schedule 4 of the
Planning Agreement deal with the provision of the affordable
housing within the Scheme.
2.15 Mr
Beese, in his paragraphs 3.29 – 3.32, argues that the shortfall in
car parking provision during the development works is an issue that
will place the Council under pressure to only agree phasing
proposals that take into account the implementation of the proposed
Park and Ride (P&R) scheme at Lambridge.
2.16 This
matter was considered during the processing of the Main Scheme
planning application and the shortfall was considered to be
acceptable. No constraints or requirements regarding temporary
parking provision or phasing to tie in with the P&R proposals
were imposed (DC Committee 10th May 2002)(CDs 5.1, 5.2 and
5.3). Indeed, although when the application was first submitted
it included an offer to part fund the Lambridge P&R, this was
later withdrawn, the Council accepting that there was no need for
the Lambridge scheme to be implemented in order for the Scheme to
proceed (DC Committee 5th June 2003)(CDs 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6).
Mr Hunter-Yeats, in paragraph 7.6.2 of his evidence to this
Inquiry, confirms that the LPA accepted that the parking provision
proposed was appropriate.
2.17 The
requirement for phasing plans to be agreed was imposed to enable
the LPA to influence and control the way in which the approved
scheme is implemented, primarily in order to minimise the
disruption and inconvenience the construction of a development of
this scale in the city centre could otherwise cause to traffic
movements in the area and the living and working conditions of the
occupiers of nearby property. Where the implementation of elements
of the scheme was considered to be time critical this was
controlled through conditions or the Planning Agreement.
3.
Conclusion
3.1 I believe that the
evidence I have given clearly indicates that the concerns expressed
by Mr Beese and Mr Morpeth regarding the lack of planning certainty
are not well founded and I would reiterate the statement made in my
earlier evidence to this Inquiry that all the planning consents
necessary for this development are in place and that there are no
planning impediments which would prevent the scheme from being
implemented.
