Agenda Item

A5

Committee Date

10th November 2014

Application Number

14/00388/FUL

Application Site

Former Frontierland Site

Marine Road West

Morecambe

Lancashire

Proposal

Redevelopment of former amusement park to form retail units, restaurants, family pub/restaurant, hotel, associated car parking, landscaping and public art

and new access

Name of Applicant

Opus Land North (Morecambe) Ltd And WM Morrison Supermarkets

Name of Agent

Mr Gareth Glennon

Decision Target Date

2 July 2014

Reason For Delay

Habitat Regulations Assessment and negotiating amendments/further information to enable Officers to

make a recommendation

Case Officer Mrs Jennifer Rehman

Departure Yes

Summary of Recommendation

Approval - subject to the applicant resolving the outstanding highway objection and committing to secure measures to mitigate impacts on Morecambe Town Centre. If Members resolve to approve, the application shall be referred to the Secretary of State.

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application site relates to the former Frontierland amusement park previously operated by Blackpool Pleasure Beach Company. The site relates to an irregular shaped parcel of previously developed land extending approximately 3.1ha in area located off Marine Road West, approximately 650m south west of the Primary Shopping Area in Morecambe. With the exception of the Polo Tower, the 'ranch styled' public house, remnants of the former log flume and electricity sub-station the site is devoid of buildings with the former hardstanding areas now predominately covered with grass/scrub. The site is enclosed by painted blue wooden hoardings along Marine Road West, a retaining planted embankment with stone walls above along the southern boundary (with Cedar Street and Grove Street) and security/palisade fencing along its boundaries with the adjoining retail park and Aldi store. The topography within the site is generally flat, although the land levels rise sharply towards the south eastern corner of the site, gradually lowering towards the seafront. The front portion of the site occupies an elevated position above Marine Road West with Highfield Crescent occupying a position approximately 3-4m higher than the main part of the site.

1.2 The site is predominantly surrounded by two different land uses: retail to the north and east comprising the Morrison’s retail park and Aldi supermarket; and residential to the south (the West End). The site is located relatively close to other retail/leisure uses including the cinema, super bowl and the Market Hall on Central Drive. The rear elevations of Aldi, Morrison’s and DW Sports (which also includes a health and fitness facility) face onto the site. The service yard to the adjacent retail park abuts the site along its eastern boundary. Some of the residential properties on the south boundary directly face into the site (the frontages of the properties on Highfield Crescent) whilst the side elevations of the end terraces on Cedar Street and Grove Street flank the site at an elevated

position.

1.3 The site has a c.192m frontage to Marine Road West, which forms the western boundary. This road is a wide carriageway enjoying a 30mph speed limit and separates the site from the promenade. An existing vehicular access to the site is provided off this adopted highway positioned approximately circa 25m south of the Aldi junction. The former amusement park was, however, previously accessed via Highfield Crescent. Marine Road West (and the promenade) forms part of the strategic cycle network, which connects to the route along Central Drive then connects to the off-road route which runs along the railway line back towards Lancaster and beyond. This road is also a strategic bus route providing the main through-route between Carnforth and Heysham. The bus station and railway station are both located on Central Drive approximately 500m (as the crow flies) from the application site (site frontage).

1.4 To the south the application site abuts part of the West End Conservation Area. The residential properties fronting the site on Highfield Crescent form the northern boundary of this designation. The site’s frontage also forms a backdrop (when viewed from the promenade) for the iconic Grade II* listed Midland Hotel located to the north of the site situated on the seafront. Other nearby listed buildings include the Platform (grade II c.200m due north east) and the Winter Gardens (grade II* c440m due north east). There are also two groups of trees established along the southern boundary of the site that are subject to Tree Preservation Order no.070 (1981).

1.5 The site falls within a Tourism Opportunity Area outside of the defined Town Centre of Morecambe (saved Local Plan). It is also located within the area covered by the emerging Morecambe Area Action Plan (MAAP), which provides a spatial plan (different to that of the saved Local Plan) for Central Morecambe in order to provide opportunities and facilitate its regeneration.

1.6 Other important off-site designations include the promenade forms part of a wider Informal Recreation Area and Morecambe Bay which enjoys a number of different nature conservation designations (SPA – Special Protected Area, SAC – Special Area of Conservation, RAMSAR – Wetlands Convention, and SSSI – Site of Special Scientific Interest) are protected by European legislation.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The applicants (WM Morrison’s supermarkets plc), have entered into a joint venture partnership with Opus Land North (Morecambe) Ltd to redevelop the application site. For clarification purposes Morrison’s own the entire site and the adjacent retail park. The applicant seeks full planning permission for the redevelopment of the former amusement park to a mixed use retail and leisure park with a new vehicular access, associated parking and landscaping including the removal of the polo tower.

2.2 A breakdown of the proposal consists of the following:

Zone 1 – 4 x non-food A1 units (ranging between 905-1586sq.m including mezzanine floor areas)

Zone 2 – 6 x non-food A1 units (ranging between 362-1598sq.m including mezzanine floor areas)

The proposed total non-food A1 retail floor area equates to 11,109sq m (including mezzanine floor area).

Zone 3 – 2 x A3 units (395q m and 441sq m)

Zone 4 – 1 x A4 unit (181sq m) and 1 x A3 unit (250sq m)

Zone 5 – 1 x A4 (family pub) 656sqm

Zone 6 - A 62-bedroom hotel

Zone 7 – 1 x kiosk A3/A4 use (165sq m)

336 car parking spaces

New vehicular access off Marine Road West

Public realm works and pedestrian connections (Despite the applicant suggesting cycle connections are proposed, there are no details of such connections within the submission).

2.3 The A3/A4 uses are proposed along the site frontage within buildings limited to single storey (zones

3, 4 and 5). The retail units (zones 1 and 2) are positioned around the northern and western boundaries of the site facing inwards towards the proposed car park where they will benefit from access to servicing (via the existing park). These units are two storey (providing space for mezzanines) with a maximum height of circa 10.5m dropping to circa 7.8m. The proposed hotel (zone 6) flanks the southern boundary of the site. This is a three storey building that marginally steps up in height (circa 13m high at its tallest point). A small single storey kiosk building is proposed within the parking areas (in front of zone 2). This is identified as an A3/A4 use in the application. Public realm works predominately consist of the pedestrian routes through the site and area to the south of Zone 2 where the pedestrian environment (through-route) is widened to create an elongated public space with seating alongside the boundaries of the car park. It also includes two public art features: one at the main pedestrian entrance off Marine Road West and the other located to the junction with the proposed link to the existing retail park. The landscaping plans indicate the presence of a similar public art feature on the promenade. However, revisions to the highway layout now omit this feature.

2.4 The proposed palette of materials vary but in the whole consists of coloured render, metal cladding systems (white/grey/green), buff and blue engineering brick, timber cladding and composite metal roofing systems. A schedule of proposed materials are provided on each elevation drawing for each building. No sample panels have been provided at this stage.

2.5 The proposal seeks to remove all the protected trees along the southern boundary. It also proposes a stepped pedestrian access with a retaining structure along this boundary to provide access to the West End (Grove Street) which shall also connect to Highfield Crescent. The application also proposes a new signal controlled access off Marine Road West. Servicing of the development shall be both within the site itself or via the servicing yards off the adjacent retail park which are within the applicant’s control.

3.0 Site History

3.1 Following the closure of the amusement park in September 2000, the applicants acquired the surplus land and lodged a planning application (Ref: 00/00967/FUL) for the erection of a factory outlet centre including 8,800 sq m of retail development, with a food court, parking, landscaping and servicing. This was recommended for approval by the City Council in March 2001 but planning permission was only granted in February 2002 following a 'Call-In' Public Inquiry. In the event, the delay in reaching this decision by the Secretary of State, combined with a downturn in the market for this type of proposal, resulted in a loss of momentum and with only a limited demand for a factory outlet centre in Morecambe, the approved scheme was not implemented.

3.2 In the light of the market interest that had been shown in the site, the applicants submitted an application in July 2004 (Ref: 04/00947/FUL) for leisure and non-food retail development on the part of the application site to the immediate south of the existing Morrison superstore. However, it was felt that this represented a piecemeal use of the site and did not provide sufficient links with the surroundings. The application was withdrawn by the applicant in July 2005 in favour of a more comprehensive scheme for the site.

3.3 The outline application submitted in 2005 (Ref: 05/00928/OUT) tried to address the piecemeal concerns by showing how the site as a whole could be developed with a mix of uses, providing predominately residential development on the site now in question. A full application (Ref: 05/00929/FUL) was submitted at the same time for 3 retail warehouses on part of the site larger site, which was subsequently approved, developed, occupied and became operational. Though the applicant marketed the remainder of the site, and received strong interest from a residential developer, again the market overtook events and the developer in question went into receivership.

3.4 More recently (2009) an outline application to effectively renew the phase 2 element of planning permission 05/00928/OUT was submitted and subsequently granted permission. This development comprised a hotel, public house/restaurant and residential development.

Application Number Proposal Decision

00/00967/FUL Erection of a factory outlet centre with food court, parking, landscaping and servicing

Granted (following a Call-in Inquiry)

04/00947/FUL Erection of two non-food retail units and combined leisure/retail unit and parking

Withdrawn

05/00928/OUT Outline application for a mixed use development including residential, hotel, leisure and retail with associated parking and servicing

Permitted (The SoS did not call-in

this proposal and accepted it broadly

accorded with national planning policy)

05/00929/FUL Erection of two non-food retail units and a combined leisure/retail unit

Permitted

07/01166/VCN Variation of condition 6B on application 05/00929/FUL to increase area of garden centre

Permitted

07/01591/VCN Proposed variation of Condition No.33 of permission 05/00929/FUL to vary implementation of the s278 works and to allow occupation of the development before the s278 works were completed

Permitted

09/00644/OUT Renewal of Phase 2 element of application 05/00928/OUT for Outline application for mixed use development including residential, hotel and leisure with associated parking and servicing

Permitted

14/00389/EIR Screening Opinion for comprehensive redevelopment of former amusement park to form retail units, restaurants, family pub/restaurant, hotel, car parking, landscaping, public art and access

EIA not required

14/00997/PAD Prior Approval for the demolition of the Polo Tower Prior Approval Required

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response

County Highways Objection on the following grounds:

The traffic modelling not accepted bases on the original and first revised plan submitted (the latter being the scheme assessed by LCC Highways)

The proposed highway layout considered unsafe – uncontrolled crossing in particular

The proposal to not create the step change in the public realm from a car dominated environment to one where priority is given to pedestrians

The proposed 20mph scheme not justified

Lack of a direct connection to the promenade from the uncontrolled crossing – this therefore concentrates pedestrian crossings at the main access – thus presents a situation where the proposed modelling is not accepted

Queuing and delay expected back to the Central Drive roundabout

Pedestrian/cycle improvement on the adjacent retail park to improve connections to the railway/bus stations and existing town centre not addressed

Concerns regarding the retaining structure along Highfield Crescent and the potential to affect highway land/stability

Service vehicles reversing over a pedestrian crossing is unsafe

Car parking strategy needs revision to cater for staff, hotel visitors and stronger management to prevent visitors (not intending to visit the retail park) to park on the site rather than elsewhere. Could lead to car parking problems. Review of the strategy after 3 months is noted.

Inadequate cycle parking on site Other matters:

No s278 scheme has been agreed nor has any s106 contribution in respect of improvements to highway infrastructure/sustainable travel. This is because the proposal presented is currently unacceptable.

£6000 towards Travel Plan support is requested

Sustainable Travel Team

Subject to the receipt of amended Travel Plan, no objections subject to a condition requiring the implementation of the Framework Travel Plan (in revised form). They also request a s106 contribution to the sum of £6000 for monitoring the implementation of the Travel Plan.

Local Planning Policy

Comments received raising the following (summarised) concerns:

The initial submission failed the sequential test. However this has since been remedied based on additional evidence being submitted confirming the sequentially preferable site at Festival Market is not available.

Concerns received in relation to the assessment of impact on both existing centres. These concerns relate to the district’s retail need in general and then impacts on the viability and viability of Lancaster and Morecambe.

The Development Plan seeks to focus most of the district’s retail need in Lancaster in accordance with the district’s identified retail hierarchy. This proposal would conflict with the Core Strategy in this regard. The White Young Green (WYG) assessment of retail need for the district maintains this approach.

With regards to retail need, based on the WYG assessment, if an enhanced market is pursued by the Council, then retail growth in Morecambe may be viable and appropriate (although the appropriate vehicle to plan for such growth would be via the preparations of the Local Development Plan). Any such allocation should seek to maximise the wider opportunities to regenerate Central Morecambe. Whilst growth is not precluded from Morecambe, any such growth needs to be carefully considered in relation to the balance of comparison retail between Lancaster and Morecambe.

Lack of evidence/consideration of the impacts of the proposal on Morecambe Town Centre. The application focuses on the benefits but does not evidence how the proposal would enhance the existing centre. The lack of information on the potential end-users, its out-of-centre location and lack of improved connections between the site and the existing centre suggests that the impacts on the vitality and viability would be significant.

The proposal would hinder the wider regeneration proposals of the town via the MAAP.

The loss of retail growth from Lancaster (for example the loss of the CCN scheme) would have significant impacts on the role, function and future growth of Lancaster City Centre.

Accepted matters:

The sequential test has been appropriately satisfied;

Whilst the application does not sufficiently demonstrate there is no impact on Lancaster City Centre, given the lack of detail/evidence in relation to the CCN scheme it is accepted at this time, there is insufficient evidence to conclude the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the CCN scheme.

MAAP Team Comments received raising the following (summarised) concerns:

The proposal is entirely inconsistent with the MAAP and would therefore prejudice the implementation of its strategic aims and objectives

The scale of the proposed retail uses could undermine the vitality and viability of the established town centre

The scheme could lead to difficulties attracting investment and development in the town centre

The proposal could lead to further town centre decline which would be difficult to arrest or recover from

The proposal needs to make appropriate steps to secure high quality design and public realm – it needs to make necessary connections with its surroundings (West End, Promenade and Town Centre)

Despites some fundamental concerns, the MAAP team recognise that the proposal could bring benefits which could support the regeneration of the town. However, this relies on the market – high-end, quality retail currently not on offer in the centre could attract new investment and stimulate new investment demand in the town.

Urban Design Concerns received:

Officer Car dominant design – extent of parking/highway layout

Insufficient detail in relation to the public realm and connections to the surrounding area

The difference in land levels between the site and Highfield Crescent makes for a difficult connection

Inactive elevations and poor natural surveillance to the link from the application site to Morrison’s

The developer should make a lasting positive contribution to the town to stimulate its regeneration

Civic Society No objections to the principle, however, concerns raised over the quality of design – “bland and utilitarian”, use of materials (prefer more traditional materials) and the lack of landscaping.

Natural England No objections - Following the submission of further information, Natural England confirm that the authority can conclude no Likely Significant Effect on the adjacent designated sites (SPA, SAC, Ramsar and SSSI).

County Ecology Concerns received:

Insufficient information to assess impacts on nesting birds and bats.

The proposal does not demonstrate no net loss in biodiversity and that off-site compensation or a commuted sum should be sought.

Environment Agency

No objection subject to following conditions:

Development to be carried out in accordance with FRA

Surface water drainage scheme

Installation of oil/petrol interceptors

United Utilities No objections subject to following condition:

Scheme for disposal of foul and surface water (separate systems and only foul permitted to public sewer)

Awaiting further comments from UU in respect of the applicant’s latest submission indicating that they cannot deal with surface water drainage on site and that they are only able to connect to the public sewer. A verbal update will be provided.

Tree Protection Officer

No objections subject to a replacement planting condition.

Environmental Health Service

No objections subject to conditions requiring development to accord with the Noise Report and standard contaminated land conditions.

Lancashire Constabulary

No objections – recommends that the scheme should be designed to Secure by Design standards and provides a number of specific recommendations

Fire Safety No objections – advise the proposal should comply with the appropriate sections of Building Regulations

English Heritage No comments – not necessary to have been notified of this proposal

Conservation Officer

No objections – recognises the development of the site will enhance the setting of the Midland Hotel – a grade II* listed building. The Conservation Officer raises some questions in respect of materials to the units facing the seafront.

Morecambe Town Council

No objections - fully supports the proposal for the following reasons:

Employment creation

Removal of a long-standing derelict site

Questions the position in relation to the retirement/care home

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 This section separately summarise the letters of support and objection that have been received at the time of compiling the report. Approximately 130 letters of support have been received to the authority’s consultation on the application: The main reasons for support are summarised below:

Community benefit – provide new amenities to the town which currently don’t exist;

Employment and economic benefits - 500 jobs and inward investment;

Will support tourism opportunities and put “Morecambe back on the map” and act as a catalyst for future investment and growth;

There is a need for better quality shops – the Andale is no longer fit for purpose and offers

poor discount retailers. It doesn’t bring people into Morecambe;

Environmental improvements – removes a long-standing eyesore from the town in this important seaside location;

Good design;

Essential to the regeneration of the West End and removing an existing barrier between Morecambe centre and the West End;

This project and others, such as the Heysham M6 Link, are restoring enthusiasm in the town again;

The two towns can co-exist as they are geographically separated by the river;

We cannot keep closing the doors to private investment to help regenerate the town;

Time that Morecambe had some development;

Objections received in response to the representations made by British Land – Morecambe does not want bulky goods retail;

Improve housing market (sale values);

Increase revenue for the Council (business rates);

Recognition of the public realm works initiated by the City Council, and this could be supported by the redevelopment of this large derelict site on the seafront.

There have also been 13 letters of objection received, although some of the support letters do echo some concerns. The main reasons for opposition/concern are as follows:

Regeneration of the existing centre should be a priority;

Concerns that “any development is better than no development” attitude will lead to granting permission for the scheme;

Loss of landscaping along the boundary with Highfield Crescent;

Risk of commuter parking on adjacent streets if staff parking on site is not secured; and concerns about excessive parking in the scheme;

The site should be developed to secure tourists not shoppers – it should be replaced by another attraction;

If the big-name retailers do not come (as they haven’t in the existing centre) this would lead to a retail park of charity/discount shops – the Arndale centre would fail and lead to another (different) eyesore in the town;

Inappropriate land use – more shops when there are empty shops and more car parking when there is already adequate;

Impacts on Lancaster City Centre and Morecambe Town Centre through loss of trade – more devastating impacts for Morecambe;

Unnecessary hotel with poor orientation to simply benefit for the claimed ‘bay views’;

Hotel will draw trade from existing hotel/guest house businesses in the area and have a negative impact on the West End;

Loss of the Ranch house pub – this is a successful business which will not be replicated by the proposal;

Other companies/developers would be better for the area – greater need for entertainment/leisure uses (ice rink, swimming pool, entertainment venue etc) – Margate is an example where a derelict theme park is being redeveloped as a “vintage theme park”;

Polo tower to remain – tourist attraction for people to benefit the vast views over the Bay;

Development has typical blandness of out-of-centre retail parks, which is nto appropriate along seafront. It lacks the place-making attributes and fails to complement the seaside character of the town;

If poorly designed it could be worse than the vacant site. The Local MP, Mr David Morris, has written to the authority to express his full support for the proposal, on the grounds it removes a long standing eyesore; it will generate a significant amount of employment; it has significant community support (evident in the public consultation exercise undertaken prior to the submission) and would support ongoing regeneration and secure Morecambe’s future. In addition to the public consultation responses, the local planning authority have also received representations on behalf of British Land Lancaster Limited Partnership (for Canal Corridor North (CCN), Lancaster) and JAP (Morecambe) LLP (who control the Arndale Centre, Morecambe). Both object to the proposal and request that the Council reject the proposal. Their main reasons for

opposition are summarised below: British Land Lancaster Limited Partnership (BLLLP):

Accuracy and reliability of the assumptions used in the submitted retail assessment are questioned.

Insufficient retail capacity to support both this proposal and CCN - Whilst acknowledging retail capacity is not a planning test, the presence or absence of capacity is intrinsically linked to impact. BLLLP argue that based on the Lancaster Retail Study (2014) capacity, in relation to Morecambe, only begins to emerge in the period after 2018 and that capacity is significantly less than what is proposed by this application for the entirety of the plan period. If approved, that capacity that would otherwise have been directed to Lancaster City Centre, would be diverted to an out-of-town site in Morecambe.

Impact on planned investment in Lancaster City Centre – BLLLP are actively working with the city council to progress proposals for a mixed use retail-led scheme on the CCN site and that the redevelopment of their site is embedded in the Development Plan and emerging Development Management DPD. Significant work has progressed proposals for this site, therefore, contrary to the applicant’s assertions there is a viable scheme for the CCN site. This proposal would significant adversely affect the viability of bringing forward CCN. There is a lack of certainty that retailers would seek representations in both towns given their proximity to one another. This proposal is speculative without policy or economic foundation.

Failure to comply with the sequential test – initial comments submitted by BLLLP indicated that the applicant had not demonstrated flexibility to indicate how the proposal might be accommodated on a more central site. Later comments provided by BLLLP raise the question over the sequential sites considered, contending that sites in Lancaster should have been considered as part of the sequential assessment of the proposal. On this basis, BLLLP consider that the CCN site would be a sequentially preferable site and therefore the sequential test fails.

Site Allocation - the proposed retail development is on an out of centre site with poor links to Morecambe Town Centre – the proposal is at odds with emerging Policy D06 of the MAAP, which is soon to be adopted planning policy and should be afforded considerable weight. The emerging MAAP identifies the site suitable or housing; it’s also identified in the 2014 SHLAA; the Council also have to identity sufficient suitable sites to deliver an increasing housing need (Land Allocations DPD). Subsequently, the use of the application site for other uses (not housing) would place even further pressure on the Council to find alternative housing sites, including greenfield sites.

JAP (Morecambe) LLP:

Excessive scale and quantum of retail floorspace proposed - this is inappropriate given out of centre location and would undoubtedly have a detrimental impact upon the vitality and viability of the existing centre and the West End.

The proposal would equate to an 11%+ increase in retail floorspace on the town’s existing retail floor area

Vacancy rates in Morecambe Town centre are above average – to permit development outside the town centre would undermine the centre’s retail function

The proposal runs contrary to the spatial ambitions of the MAAP which seek to adopt a tighter town centre around the Arndale and improve and increase footfall to drive investment in that area

Failure to demonstrate flexibility in terms of format and scale and therefore fails the sequential test

Accuracy and reliability of the assumptions used in the submitted retail assessment are questioned, particularly in respect of the trade diversion assumptions and sales density turnover. Generally the applicant’s figures are low and therefore in reality the impacts could be greater than what has been presented.

Inappropriate design, massing, materials particularly given sensitive location and setting of listed buildings.

6.0 Principal National and Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Paragraphs 7, 12, 14 and 17 - Sustainable Development and Core Principles

Section 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development Section 2 – Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres Section 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport Paragraphs 56, 57, 58, 60, 61 and 64 – Design Paragraph 69 – Promoting Healthy Communities (place making) Paragraphs 109, 117 – 119 – Conserving the Natural Environment Paragraphs 128, 131 - 136 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment Paragraphs 186, 187, 196, 197, 203 - 204 – Decision-taking

6.2 Lancaster District Core Strategy (adopted July 2008) E2 – Transportation Measures ER2 – Regeneration Priority Areas ER4 – Town Centres and Shopping ER5 – New Retail Development ER6 – Developing Tourism SC1 – Sustainable Development SC2 – Urban Concentration SC5 – Achieving Quality in Design SC7 – Development and the Risk of Flooding E1 – Environmental Capital

6.3 Lancaster District Local Plan - adopted April 2004 (saved policies) Policy TO2 (Tourism Opportunities) Policy S1 (District’s Retail Hierarchy) partially superseded by Core Strategy

Policy S9 (Morecambe Town Centre – protected retail frontages) Policy T9 (Providing for Buses in New Developments) Policy T17 (Travel Plan) Policy T26 and T27 (Footpaths and Cycleways) Policy E35 (Conservation Areas and their Surroundings)

6.4 Emerging Development Management DPD The Council is in the latter stage of preparing its’ emerging Local Plan. The Development Management DPD and Morecambe Area Action Plan have both been found to be soundly prepared, subject to the Inspector’s binding modifications. It is anticipated that both documents will be reported to Full Council shortly with a resolution to formally adopt them as part of the Local Plan for Lancaster District 2011-2031. Given the advanced stage of preparation, the policies contained in both documents are now considered to hold significant weight in decision-making. The following policies are relevant: DM1 – Town Centre Development DM3 – Public Realm and Civic Spaces Chapter 12 – Transport, Accessibility and Connectivity (DM20-23) DM27 – Protection & enhancement of Biodiversity DM32 – The Setting of Designated Heritage Assets DM35 – Key Design Principles DM38 – Development & Flood Risk DM39 – Surface water Run-off and Sustainable Drainage DM48 – Community Infrastructure

6.5 Emerging Morecambe Area Action Plan (MAAP) SP1 – Key Pedestrian Routes and Spaces SP4 – Town Centre DO6 – Former Frontierland Site DO5 – Festival Market and Area

6.6 Other Material Considerations

Draft Local Plan for Lancaster District – Land Allocations DPD (Preferred Options Document)

National Planning Practice Guidance Lancaster City Council Retail Development Strategy Final Report (White Young Green

(WYG),January 2014) Lancaster City Council Retail Town Centre Health Checks (WYG, 2014) Supplementary Planning Guidance 12 ‘Residential Design Guide’

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The main issues to be considered in the determination of this application are:

Development Plan and emerging Policy Considerations

Retail Considerations

Regeneration Benefits

Highway Considerations

Design

Residential Amenity

Biodiversity

Other considerations

7.2 Development Plan and emerging Policy Considerations The NPPF makes it clear that it does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making (paragraph 12) and that planning should be genuinely plan-led (paragraph 17). The planning law requires applications for planning permission to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (S70(2) of the Town & Country Planning Act / S38(6) Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

7.3 The relevant policies of the development plan are set out in section 6.0 of this report. Of particular relevance is policy TO2 which allocates Morecambe Centre as an area suitable for new visitor attractions. The Core Strategy (CS) policy ER2 also seeks to promote Central Morecambe as a visitor destination, through appropriate tourism, housing renewal and heritage-led regeneration. Partially-saved policy S1 and CS policy ER4 recognise Morecambe within its retail hierarchy predominately as a district centre - a town centre aimed at meeting the retail (comparison and convenience) needs of the District north of the River Lune whilst maintaining an important role as a visitor destination. CS Policy ER5 seeks to focus retail need on regenerating and reinforcing the vitality and viability of existing centres. For Morecambe, this policy recognises there is some scope for retail development where it enables regeneration of the town centre. The development plan identifies there is a retail hierarchy in the district and that the Council should follow this hierarchy in order to maintain the vitality and viability of the districts centres. Any retail development in Morecambe should be to meet regeneration needs of Central Morecambe. Local planning policy and national policy adopts a ‘town-centre first’ approach when considering retail proposals.

7.4 Paragraph 23 of the NPPF states planning policies should be positive, promote competitive town centre environments and set out policies for the management and growth of centres over the plan period. In particular, local authorities should, where town centres are in decline, plan positively for their future to encourage economic activity. This authority has recognised the importance of Central Morecambe as a district centre, a visitor destination and also as a key regeneration priority of the District. In order to deliver further, sustainable regeneration of the town, the Council has prepared the MAAP which sets out a strategic spatial vision to make Central Morecambe a place people want to invest in, trade in, live in and visit. The MAAP has been found sound and is due to be reported to the City Council’s Full Council in December, with a view to formally adopting the MAAP as part of the Development Plan. Notwithstanding this, the policies contained within the MAAP still carry significant weight in decision-making at the time of this Committee Meeting.

7.5

To provide some context, the Council’s own evidence and that presented by the applicant indicates that Morecambe performs poorly. Vacancy rates are high and the quality of retail/leisure offer on the whole is low. The social and economic perceptions of the town, which date back as far as the evolution in the tourism industry in the 1970s but are by no means limited to that, have contributed to low-levels of private investor confidence. More recently public sector-led investment in the town has been received favourably (e.g. the award-winning TERN Project of artworks along the Promenade; the coastal protection works and the public/private partnership which helped secure the restoration of the Midland Hotel). This has assisted in preventing further decline, but unfortunately significant

7.6

private investment – especially in terms of sites and buildings that are not in public ownership – has not followed. The Council has even had to threaten enforcement action to persuade some local businesses invest in the appearance of their own commercial premises. There are many reasons for this and the MAAP discusses the constraints (and opportunities) that exist in the Town. One of the main reasons why private investment has not been forthcoming is linked to the geographical disconnect between the seafront and the Town Centre. Whilst there is often significant footfall along the promenade, especially during good weather, people find little reason or ‘draw’ to visit the Town Centre. Some of this is due to the absence of diversity in retailing, cultural or food and drink offers within the heart of the Town Centre – however Marine Road is perceived as a barrier to the Town Centre and legibility/ease of access is clearly an issue. This all combines to create a climate where visitors are not encouraged to visit the Town centre, or stay longer in Morecambe and (critically) spend more.

7.7 The MAAP seeks to create opportunities to change the environment and visitor perceptions to create the right conditions for investment. This approach is fully consistent with the NPPF and the practice guidance, which states that a ‘positive vision or strategy for town centres, articulated through the Local Plan, is key to ensuring successful town centres which enable sustainable economic growth and provide a wide range of social and environmental benefits’ (paragraph 002, PPG).

7.8 The spatial vision for Central Morecambe’s is to consolidate the town centre and for it to be better integrated with the seafront. Subsequently the MAAP does not support the use of the application site for retail uses given its location remote from the town centre. The MAAP recognises that the redevelopment of the application site should be predominantly for housing, although given its prominent location on the seafront, the policy does not discount some commercial uses along the site frontage.

7.9 The table contained at section 3.0 of this report highlights the various historic proposals relevant to the site. Previous proposals have included retail development. However, it should be made clear that retail previously permitted in relation to the wider Frontierland site has been quite different to that now currently proposed. The first planning consent was for a factory outlet centre, and this type of proposal would consist of a different type of retail offer from the offer in the existing town and would have a wider regional catchment. The second was three retail units (one being for bulky goods retailing) to complement the adjacent supermarket (Morrison’s). More recent consents on the application site itself have been predominately for residential development, including a hotel. Whilst retail has been permitted in the vicinity of the site, Officers do not contend that there is historic precedent for some form of retail on the application site.

7.10 The applicant claims that the lead policy document in this case should be the NPPF (due to the age of the Saved Policies of the Local Plan). However the starting point of decision-making is the Development Plan (Paragraph 12, NPPF). The regeneration and retail policies contained within the Council’s Core Strategy are considered consistent with the NPPF and its practice guidance, which ultimately seeks to encourage retail development in town centre locations of a scale appropriate to their role and function. As for the emerging Lancaster District Local Plan 2011-2031, in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, the DM DPD and MAAP can now be afforded significant weight. These policy documents do not seek to encourage retail development on the application site. The proposal would also depart from its allocation as a Tourism Opportunity Site, although allocations carry limited weight given the policy objectives set out in the MAAP for this site. Subsequently, Officers consider that the proposal is a departure from the Development Plan and would be at odds with the emerging MAAP. The NPPF states that proposals that conflict with the Development Plan should be refused unless other material conditions indicate otherwise. The applicant contends that the key test imposed by the NPPF (relevant to their proposal) is that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The key test for the authority is to objectively assess and balance the benefits and impacts of the proposal and make a judgement as to whether the proposal would outweigh a departure from the Development Plan and the spatial vision set out in the emerging MAAP.

7.11 It should be highlighted that given the site’s out of centre location, the scale of development and its departure to the provisions of the Development Plan, the proposal must be referred to the Secretary of State (National Planning Casework Unit) in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009. The purpose of the Direction is to give the Secretary of State an opportunity to consider using the power to call in an application under section 77 of the

Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

7.12 Retail Considerations 1. The NPPF sets out two key tests that should be applied when planning for town centre uses which

are not in an existing town centre and which are not in accord with an up to date Local Plan – the sequential test and the impact test (paragraph 001, PPG). The applicant has submitted a retail assessment including both tests.

7.13 7.14

Sequential Assessment The Frontierland site is not located within the identified centre of Morecambe (paragraph 1.02 of the applicants’ Planning Statement makes clear that the proposal site is approximately 640m to the South West of the Primary Shopping Area) and despite the site being adjacent to the Town Centre boundary (saved local plan), given its distance from the primary retail area, the applicant accepts that the application site is considered to be in an ‘out-of-centre’ location. Given the site’s location the sequential test should be applied in accordance with paragraph 24 of the NPPF and the guidance found within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The scope of the sequential assessment (i.e. considering sites in Morecambe rather than other existing centres, such as Lancaster) has been accepted by Officers. National policy and guidance is not prescriptive in terms of pre-determining which town centres should be assessed as part of the sequential test. The text within the NPPF suggests that the sequential test would apply to only to the town in which the application is proposed. It states, “when considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the [our emphasis] town centre”. The practice guidance (paragraph 010, PPG) further states that undertaking the sequential test should be proportionate and appropriate for the given proposal. The lack of explicit national guidance would appear to lend credence to the view that the need to widen the sequential test beyond the host town’s boundaries would only be necessary and appropriate in the most exceptional circumstances. Therefore, despite third-party observations to the contrary, Officers consider that the scope of the assessment is reasonable and proportionate.

7.15 7.16

The applicant has assessed five different sites as part of the sequential test. They include the existing Arndale Centre (and surroundings); the West View Car Park between Northumberland Street and Skipton Street; The Festival Market and surrounding area; the wider seafront and headland; and The Battery area. Of these sites, Officers contended that the Festival Market site was a sequentially preferable site by virtue of its location closer to the existing Town Centre, and being of a size which could physically accommodate the scale of development that is being proposed. Additionally the Festival Market site and its surrounding environs is a designation identified in the MAAP (under Policy DO5) as an opportunity site that can accommodate town centre uses including community facilities (the indoor market); and is capable of providing improved legibility of pedestrian routes, high quality design and improvement to car parking availability. The applicant’s reasons for dismissing the site in respect of suitability are not accepted. For example, the applicant considers that the Festival Market site’s relationship with listed buildings and the historic environment is a constraint; Officers consider that it is an opportunity to deliver appropriately-located uses and buildings across the site. Similarly, the availability and impact of development on parking provision is a material consideration for a proposal on this site, but the site should not be easily-discounted on this basis. Flexibility is embedded in Policy DO5 of the MAAP in this respect. Equally, the provision of enhanced pedestrian routes, highway safety and its relationship with the seafront and adjacent historic buildings are all material considerations which should contribute to good quality urban design – considerations which would apply to any site. Therefore these arguments offered by the applicant are not sound reasons to dismiss this sequentially preferable site on suitability grounds.

7.17 7.18

Given that Officers believe that the Festival Market site is sequentially preferable, the issue then rests with whether the Festival Market site is ‘available’. Paragraph 24 of the NPPF and the practice guidance is not prescriptive over what is meant by ‘available’, however superseded guidance (PPS4 Practice Guidance) defined availability as a site that was available now or are likely to become available for development within a reasonable period of time. This is not an unreasonable definition. In this case, Officers are aware that the Council (Cabinet Report, February 2014) supported the preferred approach of engaging with Lancashire County Council’s regeneration partner, Carillion, to explore partnering opportunities to develop Morecambe’s key central sites, including the Festival

Market site. It should also be noted that this site is in a number of ownerships with the City Council being one of the largest owners. Officers should consider whether there is reasonable confidence and no insurmountable legal or ownerships problems in considering whether a site is available. In land use planning terms there is nothing that would preclude this site coming forward in the manner proposed by the applicant (DO5 MAAP supports town centre uses). However, in terms of whether there is reasonable confidence of the site being available, Officers must be mindful that despite the Council have a preferred development partner, the Council has not yet advanced or indicated they would be advancing a proposal or masterplan for the Festival Market site or other sites within Central Morecambe. Furthermore the Council (as landowner) have separately indicated that the Festival Market site is not surplus to City Council requirements and that the site is not currently available for re-development. Subsequently, the Festival Market site is considered unavailable and the sequential test has been satisfied by the applicant.

7.19

2. Quantitative Retail Needs 3. Whilst retail need or capacity is not a test in planning policy terms, the presence or absence of

capacity is intrinsically linked to assessing impact on existing centres. The Council have recently prepared and published a Retail Assessment and Strategy for the District (2014) which forms part of the Council’s evidence base to inform preparations of the Lancaster District Local Plan (2011-2031). Importantly, the 2014 assessment sets out forecasts for future retail needs within the District, both in terms of comparison and convenience retailing. Of particular relevance to this proposal is the future comparison retail requirements for both the District as a whole and the requirements for both Lancaster and Morecambe.

4. 7.20 In terms of the district-wide retail need, the assessment provides two scenarios for future retail

growth. Firstly a scenario where the existing retail market share is maintained and secondly a scenario where growth allows for market share to be enhanced. In taking the scenario where maintaining the market share is pursued that comparison retail growth up until 2031 will be highly constrained with a retail need of only between 11,100sqm and 18,400sqm of new comparison floorspace being required within the District as a whole. The proposal at Frontierland (which involves the delivery of 11,109sqm of comparison retail floorspace) would seek to deliver the full retail requirement for the entire District with the first five years of the assessment period. On this basis, there would be concern that the lack of capacity could severely impact the vitality and viability of the existing centres. Alternatively if the District seeks to enhance its current market share, a minimum of 22,800sqm of new floorspace and no more than 38,100sqm up to 2031 could be supported within the district over the plan period. Paragraph 6.58 of the WYG assessment states that ‘With a combined comparison goods market share of 31.3% we [WYG] believe that through positive intervention the City [Lancaster District] could seek to aspire to a market share of at least 35%...’This statement would suggest that should the District choose to enhance its market share through further retail growth then this approach would be an entirely reasonable one which was consistent with up-to-date, relevant evidence base. The vehicle to best plan for (and deliver) such growth would be through the preparation of the Development Plan and the allocation of land for future retail growth. Should the scenario of enhanced market share be taken then further retail growth in Morecambe and Lancaster may be viable and appropriate.

7.21 Section 8 of the WYG assessment sets out the recommended strategic approach towards future retail growth in the District. There are a number of key statements which are of relevance to the proposal at Frontierland.

Paragraph 8.05 states ‘The Strategic approach for the city [Lancaster District] would be to focus and direct new comparison goods floorspace towards the [Lancaster] city centre. In seeking to enhance the current market share we [WYG] estimate that through the introduction of between (approximately) 23,000sqm and 38,000sqm (net) of new floorspace would significantly strengthen Lancaster’s position in the long term. The only available and suitable location to accommodate such growth would be the Canal Corridor Site…’

Paragraph 8.09 states ‘Encouraging such a level of floorspace at or around Morecambe Town Centre, whilst providing potential regeneration benefits to the town, may reduce the availability of expenditure to support an improved city centre offer at Lancaster and therefore a careful balance between Lancaster City Centre and Morecambe Town Centre will need to be considered to ensure that the Canal Corridor North Site is delivered first and whether such development is delivered after the Heysham Link Road is delivered.’

7.22 4.1 The WYG assessment sets out a clear recommendation that the Council should proceed with the

approach of enhanced market share to capture comparison retail expenditure that currently leaks out of the district (WYG study indicates the district as a whole retains only 31.3% - low for district of this size) and that such extra growth should be delivered through the regeneration of the Canal Corridor site in Lancaster. The assessment identifies this site as an area which can deliver significant comparison retail development and is suitable available and deliverable. The consequence of development on the Canal Corridor Site would be to reinforce Lancaster’s position as a sub-regional centre and the main comparison shopping destination as set out in Policy ER4 of the Lancaster District Core Strategy. The approach taken by WYG in preparing their strategic recommendations is an entirely reasonable one and is based on adopted development plan policy, in particular Policies ER2, ER4 and ER5 of the Lancaster District Core Strategy and the emerging policy approach to the Canal Corridor site taken in the draft Land Allocations DPD. Such an approach does not seek to preclude retail growth within Central Morecambe, however such growth should be carefully considered in relation to the balance of comparison retail between Lancaster and Morecambe. Importantly future retail growth in Central Morecambe should be seeking to deliver wide benefits to the existing town centre. Whilst an approach to enhance the market share would allow for further retail growth district wide, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the level of comparison retailing proposed is necessary and appropriate for Morecambe. Paragraph 8.64 of the applicants’ Planning Statement concludes that in relation to retail matters the proposed development is supported by qualitative need considerations and therefore there is sufficient expenditure capacity to support it and that in order to meet the aims and objective to the MAAP, the Council must seek to improve Morecambe town’s retail offer and its market share.

7.23 5. Impacts on viability and vitality of exiting centres Paragraph 26 of the NPPF requires town centre development (retail/leisure/office) over 2,500sq.m outside of town centres to be accompanied by a retail impact assessment. Such an assessment should include an assessment of the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in centre(s) in the catchment area and an impact on the proposal on town centre vitality and viability.

7.24 6. In order to fulfil the requirements of the Impact Assessment, the applicant has set out and analysed a number of retail schemes which may be impacted by the proposal at Frontierland. No objections are raised over the extent of schemes which have been identified within this Impact Assessment

7.25 Marketgate, Lancaster City Centre 6.1 It is accepted that planning permission has been granted for a comparison retail scheme at

Marketgate, and that an end-user (Primark) has been agreed. This permission is currently being implemented on site. Given the degree of certainty surrounding the scheme, and the scale of which is being proposed it is agreed that the proposal at Frontierland is unlikely to impact on the deliverability of the Marketgate scheme.

6.2 7.26

Canal Corridor Scheme, Lancaster The applicant provides details in relation to the Canal Corridor North (CCN) scheme in relation to a factual background to the proposal and seeking to estimate the levels of future comparison / convenience retail and leisure floorspace within any future scheme for the site. It would be worth noting that the delivery of retail growth in Central Lancaster is a key priority of Policy ER4 and ER5 of the Core Strategy and the emerging draft Land Allocations DPD Policy CWL1 identifies the Canal Corridor North site for future retail growth. This also echoes the recommendations of the WYG retail study. The Council’s planning policy clearly seeks to secure and direct comparison retail in central Lancaster in accordance with its identified retail hierarchy. The critical concern in this respect is to consider whether granting the proposal would significantly prejudice the delivery of the CCN scheme. As noted earlier in this report, objections from British Land have been received expressing concern over the proposal and the assumptions presented. They contend that the proposal could will have a significant adverse impact on the planned investment in Lancaster City Centre, particularly on the CCN development, bearing in mind that the development of CCN site forms the basis for key retail policy contained in the Core Strategy and emerging DPDs. The Lancaster Retail Study Update (2014) provides that the retail capacity within the district should be directed to Lancaster in the first instance. On this basis, their fundamental objection is that the proposal will prejudice the delivery of the CNN scheme by virtue of the fact the proposal would directly compete with the type of retail occupiers that are likely to seek to locate within the CCN development. British Land also argue that the assumptions used within the applicant’s assessment are unrealistic and represent an under-estimation of potential impact. Whilst British Land do not object to the regeneration of this brownfield site, they have significant concerns over the scale and type of retail

proposed. In respect of the impact on committed and planned investment, Officers accept that there is currently insufficient data in relation to the CCN scheme to test the levels of impact against. The absence of a new masterplan, submitted planning application or grant of planning permission for the CCN site leads Officers to conclude that – despite progress being made and ongoing, positive negotiations - there is presently no existing, deliverable scheme for the CCN site despite support for such a scheme being embedded in planning policy. Whilst this may be demonstrated in the near future, at this time such information is not available and as a consequence there is no opportunity to test potential impacts against robust and up-to-date information. It is also acknowledged, that whilst British Land have criticised the applicant for under-estimating the scale of the CCN scheme and the potential impacts, during the time this application has been under consideration, they have not been able to confirm or provide any indication of the scale of retail proposed on the CCN scheme to assist the applicant and authority in assessing the potential impacts.

7.27 The applicant’s retail assessment (as updated) identifies an impact on Lancaster and Morecambe Centres of 8.1% and 4.7% respectively, although there are still concerns expressed from third parties about the assumptions used within the assessment to secure a more robust assessment, such as increasing the sales densities to £5,000/sq.m. The fundamental concern in respect of the applicant’s retail assessment is that it is potentially presents and under-estimation of the level of impact.

7.28 6.3 Lancaster City Centre 6.4 Lancaster City Centre is the main retail centre in the District and is recognised in Policy ER4 as a

centre of sub-regional importance and the main comparison shopping destination for the district. Lancaster is considered to be a healthy, diverse, vibrant town centre. Vacancy levels are near to the national average and there is a strong diversity in the range of retail offer provided in the town. Footfall through the centre is also considered to be relatively strong, aided by recent improvements to the public realm. The only notable weakness for Lancaster Centre is the lack of modern, fit-for-purpose retail units which limits the level of national multiples within the city centre. This is not unexpected given the historical character of Lancaster Centre. The Council’s recognition, through the Core Strategy, of Lancaster City Centre as the main retail centre indicates that a significant proportion of future retail growth should be directed towards Lancaster. Future retail growth will assist in maintaining Lancaster’s role both locally and regionally and will assist in delivering new modern retail units.

7.29 The Council have a clear position on how future retail growth should be delivered via Policy ER5 of the Core Strategy which states that ‘new comparison retailing will be focused on a planned expansion of Lancaster’s Primary Shopping Area and to meet the regeneration needs in Central Morecambe’. This approach is reinforced by the regeneration strategy set out in Policy ER2 of the Core Strategy. Granting permission for the proposal at Frontierland would be a clear deviation from this approach. In the first instance it would be permitting significant comparison retail growth away from the District’s main retail location, Lancaster. In the second instance retail growth in Morecambe should also seek to deliver wider regeneration benefits. As such the potential impacts could - if the proposal led to the loss of private investment in the CCN scheme - be significant.

7.30 The applicant’s retail assessments have been updated during the consideration of the proposal. One of the main changes has been additional sensitivity testing in respect of the turnover figures/sales densities. Despite some concerns over the assumptions provided within the assessment, the predicted impact of the development on Lancaster City Centre is indicated to be 8.1%. Based on these figures it is evident that there will be some impact on the viability and vitality of Lancaster City Centre. To provide some comparison the Inspector in the Factory Outlet case (00/00967/OUT) contended that the level of impact of the proposed factory outlet centre would not lead to significant harm on the vitality and viability of Lancaster City Centre. The accepted figures were as low as 2.3% (all comparison goods) and 3.7% (clothing and footwear). In this case, an impact of 8.1% is somewhat higher than the figures suggested under the previous proposal – clearly an indication of the different type and function of retailing proposed at that time. So, whilst 8.1% seems a low figure it does indicate some impact – the test is whether that impact is significant and would lead to harm on the vitality and viability of Lancaster City Centre, bearing in mind Lancaster is a healthy centre performing well, despite there being a clear need to enhance its market and capture quite significant comparison retailing leakage to other regional centres.

7.31

To compound these concerns, the current proposal is a speculative one with no indication of potential end-users. The uncertainty over the retail operators increases the degree of concern over

7.32

the potential impact the proposal may have on the existing centres. On this basis, whilst the local planning authority have little control over the eventual quality of the retail operators/multiples, Officers have asked the applicant which retailers have expressed an interest in their proposal. The applicant has been unable to identify names of potential occupiers. However, they have indicated that the following retailers have (general) requirements for floorspace in Morecambe - Primark, Mothercare, Premier Inn, Sporting Pro, Store 21 and Paparazzi. This information provided by the applicant differs from the wider public perception of retailers that may be interested in the site – fuelled perhaps by the applicant’s pre-planning application public consultation which evidenced a public desire for a department store and retailers like Marks and Spencer’s. Whilst the scale of comparison retailing proposed on this out-of-centre location in Morecambe is not fully compliant with Development Plan policy (ER 4), the degree of impact suggested on Lancaster City Centre would still lead Officers to conclude that if the high-end multiples were not attracted to the proposed site, the level of impact would not lead to significant harm on the vitality and viability of Lancaster City Centre. The concern of course, is that the authority cannot control the retail market – the applicant’s lack of ability or willingness to reassure officers on this count is clearly a negative in the submission.

7.33 Notwithstanding the above concerns, the geographic and functional differences between Lancaster and Morecambe are also a key material consideration. Both towns are physically separated by the River Lune and the highway network and as such both towns can and are capable of operating in isolation from each other. There is evidence on the ground that indicates retailers can operate successfully in both towns. Boots, Argos, Next, Poundland, and Sainsbury’s are good examples. Both towns need to provide comparison and convenience retail that meets the needs of their communities.

7.34

For Lancaster City Centre, the evidence in respect of retail capacity suggests (based on an enhanced market being pursed) that there is sufficient retail capacity in the district to accommodate the proposed development and the redevelopment of Central Lancaster. There remains concern that the scale of development in Morecambe given the retail hierarchy is somewhat disproportionate but in light of the considerations above (i.e. the relatively low level of impact; potential end-users and geographic considerations) it is contended that the proposal would not have a significant harmful impact on the vitality and viability of the Lancaster City Centre. The remaining key test in this case is whether the proposal meets the regeneration needs of Morecambe.

7.35 Morecambe Town Centre The existing centre of Morecambe lies approximately 640m to the North East of the proposal site and contains a range of retail units which are predominantly situated on Euston Road, Pedder Street and within the Arndale Centre. Morecambe Town Centre is seen as in the second tier of centres as described in Policy ER4 of the Lancaster District Core Strategy. Policy ER4 suggests that Morecambe Town Centre will continue to develop as a town centre providing comparison retailing for the District north of the River Lune. Policy ER5 states that in relation to Morecambe, new comparison retailing will be focused on meeting regeneration needs.

7.36 The health of the town centre has declined over many years and its current status can reasonably be described as poor. Indicators show that the level of vacancy is relatively high and the range / quality of retail offer is low. Retail prominence to the main arterial routes in and around the town centre is poor and the footfall is disappointing low given its close proximity to the promenade. Overall and despite public realm improvements and re-branding work for Morecambe, investor confidence remains very low. Central Morecambe is therefore recognised as a regeneration priority area of sub-regional importance through Policy ER2 of the Lancaster District Core Strategy. The vehicle for the delivery of regeneration proposals within Central Morecambe is via the preparation and implementation of the Morecambe Area Action Plan (MAAP).

7.37 6.5 The Council has a long term commitment to regenerating Central Morecambe and improving the functionality and retail draw of the existing town centre area. It is accepted that a key element of this regeneration will involve the improvement of retail offer in Morecambe Town Centre to ensure that local comparison retail needs are met. It is accepted that to achieve this retail growth, development will be required provided it is in the appropriate location and to the appropriate scale. The proposal at Frontierland will clearly deliver some of those regeneration benefits required for Morecambe, particularly in terms of providing modern retail units and an opportunity to delivery economic investment and job growth. But such benefits must be considered and balanced against the

substantial impacts that the proposal will have on the role and function of the primary retail area which is located over half a kilometre away from the proposal site. These impacts could include a further reduction in footfall within the existing town centre, the further reduction in opportunities for investment and growth in the town centre and the implications on delivering long-term regeneration of the town centre and the near-adopted spatial strategy of the MAAP.

7.38 The applicant’s evidence to suggest that their retail scheme will aid the wider regeneration of the town centre, are mainly assertions (albeit reasonable ones) that the development will create a catalyst for inward investment and improve investor confidence in the town, enhance the retail offer and prevent leakage to destinations beyond the catchment area and create jobs. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that the redevelopment of the Frontierland site will assist in reducing vacancy levels in Morecambe Town Centre and increase footfall in the centre to assist in delivering investment and economic growth. However, it must be acknowledged that the proposal does involve a significant investment in the town (£17million) - investment that has not been forthcoming in Morecambe for some considerable time. It should also be acknowledged that the proposal will create a significant amount of employment which has the potential for a considerable improvement to Morecambe’s (and the surrounding areas’) economic and social prospects. A quality scheme could capture visitor spend which currently does not take place in the town.

7.39 The applicant claims the predicted impact on Morecambe Town Centre would be 4.7%. Whilst this figure is low, it does not mean the impacts are not significant, particularly given the existing relative poor performance and vulnerability of the existing centre. Such concerns are echoed by the owners of the Arndale Centre in their representations.

7.40 The proposal is accepted to be an out-of-centre location but it does currently sit adjacent to the existing town centre boundary. It is the site’s location which presents the most fundamental concern. A proposal of this scale within the town centre would not be required to undertake an impact assessment, whether it would impact existing retail development within the town or not. As such, it seems sensible at this point to address whether the site is well-connected to the existing centre. In this context, we are talking about the connections to the primary shopping area.

7.41 7.42

The proposed site is located approximately 640m from the Primary Shopping Area of Morecambe Town Centre. Whilst this does not seem a prohibitive distance, there are significant barriers and constraints which prevent there being clear legible routes from the application site to the existing Primary Shopping Area. The provision of such links would assist enhance pedestrian footfall and linked trips between the two sites. These constraints are acknowledged in the MAAP with aspirations to break these barriers enabling better integration with the seafront in particular. Whilst the proposal supports a connection to the existing retail park, pedestrians and cyclists have to navigate around a large expanse of car parking with no clear markers to direct people to the existing shopping area. The desire line to the bus station, railway station and beyond towards the town centre (Victoria Street) from this point of the site would be diagonally through the adjacent retail car park towards the Morrison’s roundabout, across on to the Northumberland Street car park towards Victoria Street. The other clear barrier is Marine Road West itself. Whilst the proposal seeks to provide a crossing from the application site to the promenade it is at one point along a large frontage (at the controlled crossing). It is difficult to accept this one crossing is a sufficient measure to integrate the site with the seafront (an aspiration of policy DO6 of the MAAP) and provide enhanced opportunities to improve footfall and linked trips with what would end up being an elongated, sprawling centre (if permission is granted) – contrary to the spatial objectives of the MAAP to consolidate the existing centre. The one connection indicated to the north of the proposed vehicular access only permits access across the highway – it does not at that point connect to the promenade as the applicant does not propose to break-through the wave reflection wall at that point. This is a significant deficiency in the applicant’s proposal, but could be overcome is the applicant was prepared to amend their proposed in this regard. Further consideration of this issue is provided under the highway considerations of this report.

7.43 It is the applicants’ case that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the viability and vitality of Morecambe Town Centre on the basis that the regeneration benefits would outweigh any potential impacts – although they do not acknowledge what those impacts would be. Notwithstanding this, the applicant offers a financial contribution to the sum of £200,000 of which £50,000 would contribute towards a way-finding scheme to mitigate what they describe as

‘perceived’ impacts on the town centre. Given the out of centre location, the scale of development, and what Officers consider are poor connections and integration with the town centre and promenade, the proposal does little in the way of improving linkages between the proposal site and the town centre. Consequently, there is a fundamental disagreement with the applicant’s conclusions in their Planning Statement which suggests that the proposal will not have a significant effect on the viability and vitality of Morecambe Town Centre.

7.44

Whilst it may be reasonable to suggest that the creation of a new retail centre in the proposed location will not make Morecambe Town Centre any worse than it is at this point in time, Officers are not wholly convinced, and should this application be permitted as it currently stands officers believe it could significantly reduce the opportunities for Morecambe Town Centre to re-establish itself as a functioning, healthy centre which can provide a multi-functional role as a service centre for residents of Morecambe and those residing north of the River Lune. Equally, the proposal could severely hinder wider regeneration proposals for the town which are set out in the MAAP. Again, the speculative nature of the proposal does not alleviate such concerns. On this basis there is clear conflict with existing and emerging planning policy in respect of retail development in the district and the regeneration of Morecambe.

7.45 The West End It is recognised within the MAAP that the current condition of the application site is a significant barrier to the movement of pedestrians between Central Morecambe and the West End. The redevelopment of the site therefore provides opportunities to improve legibility between these two quite distinct areas of the town. The proposed layout and design are assessed later in this report under the heading ‘Design’. In terms of the retail impacts of the proposal, the West End could reasonably be described as a local centre which primarily aims to support its local community. Notwithstanding this, it is recognised that the retail offer within the West End remains diverse. The provision of improved connections on this vacant site (which currently acts as a barrier), is enough to satisfy Officers that the retails impacts on the West End are more likely to weigh in favour of the proposal than against. It would appear from the public representations that the greatest level of concern in terms of the impact on the West End relates to the proposed hotel and family pub/restaurant. The loss of the existing ‘ranch house’ pub has been a concern, noting that the replacement public house will not be as popular as the community’s existing ‘local pub’. Others raise concerns that the hotel will take trade from the surviving guest houses that current exist in the West End. Whilst these concerns are understandable, the hotel and family pub have the potential to support and enhance the leisure opportunities in Morecambe as a whole and as such the concerns raised would not outweigh the benefits that could be realised through the proposed development.

7.46 Regeneration Benefits As with all planning proposals, there are generally positive and negatives attributes associated with development proposals which need to be considered in a careful and balanced way to make a reasonable and sound judgement.

7.47 The application site is a large, vacant area of previously developed land occupying a prominent seafront location. It forms the backdrop to the listed Midland Hotel and is highly visible from the well-used, high quality recreational route which runs alongside the Bay (the promenade). As such, it is acknowledged that there would be significant benefits associated with the reclamation of this derelict site. The proposal would also support significant economic benefits through job creation (the applicant claims 674-694 jobs) and improving investor confidence. The latter will clearly depend on whether the developer;

(a) Implements the permission; and, (b) Attracts and delivers quality retailers and leisure operators.

The applicant claims the proposal will enhance the retail offer and there is a possibility it could, but equally, there is a possibly that existing retailers in the existing centre could relocate. Alternatively, the quality of the retail offer could remain relatively low across the town, albeit with greater quantum of retail unit provision. Notwithstanding this, the development of a mix of retail and leisure uses (including a hotel) could attract a greater number of visitors and shoppers to spend money in the town which, if connections are enhanced, could support the town centre and existing businesses. The potential benefits could therefore outweigh some of the concerns reported above. However, the acceptability of the proposal depends not only on retail considerations and impacts of the development but on a number of other material considerations, albeit in many cases they are

intrinsically linked. This would concur with aims and objectives of the NPPF which clearly states that whist there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14) with sustainable development encompasses three mutually dependant dimensions (social, economic, and environmental).

7.48 Highway Considerations One of the NPPF’s core principals is to actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made accessible (paragraph 17). It requires developers that generate significant amounts of movement to be supported by a Transport Statement or Assessment which should ensure that opportunities for sustainable transport modes are taken up; that safe and suitable access can be achieved and that improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost-effectively limit significant impacts of the development. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF goes on to state that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe. Core Strategy policy E2 and emerging policies DM20 and DM21 are all considered consistent with the NPPF. For Central Morecambe particular emphasis is made in the MAAP to improve the pedestrian environment to enable the town to function better and be more attractive to its users. Well-planned and a high quality network of key streets and spaces is fundamental and underpins much in the MAAP.

7.49 The applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan to accompany the application. A revised Travel Plan has been submitted along with revised plans of the proposed highway access arrangement and supporting details. Further information has also been provided in relation to car parking management, servicing strategy, and pedestrian connections. Before considering the traffic implications, it is important to provide some general context about the site’s location and the characteristics of the transport infrastructure.

7.50 The site is located out-of-centre but is extremely well served by public transport with Morecambe’s bus and rail stations within walking distance, albeit the walking routes are currently constrained by existing barriers (road layout/car park to adjacent retail park) and are not easily legible. Bus stops on Marine Road West and Central Drive are even closer to the site. The bus services are regular and well used and are on a Quality Bus Route along the Promenade. The train line provide regular rail services throughout the day and into the evening between Morecambe and Lancaster (approximately a 10 minute trip). From Lancaster, there is easy access to regular rail services north and south of Lancaster on via the national rail network (such as Preston, Manchester, Birmingham, London to the South and the Lake District, Carlisle, Edinburgh, Glasgow to the north). Access to the Strategic Cycle Network is also within easy reach.

7.51 When the site was previously operational (and before the temporary vehicular access was provided off Marine Road West when the amusement park was demolished), the main vehicular access was via the narrow residential street of Highfield Crescent. There is currently no access from the site to West End Road, Grove Street or Cedar Avenue.

7.52 Marine Road is a major route through Morecambe and performs the function of an all-purpose distributor type road linking Morecambe town centre with Heysham to the south-west. To the north-east the road follows the line of the bay and eventually links Morecambe to the A6. The application site fronts a larger stretch of Marine Road West, but not far in each direction of the site frontage Marine Road West meets other local important distributor roads; Regent Road onto West End Road to the south and Central Drive to the north. The stretch of highway between these junctions is only c.600m but already traffic is highly managed. It includes a three-arm roundabout at the junction with Central Drive (dual carriageway), a signal controlled junction (with dedicated left turn lane from the north) into the Aldi store, a ‘green man’ staggered pedestrian crossing and a further three-armed signal controlled junction at Regent Road catering for cyclists and pedestrians. Central Drive continues east from the junction with Marine Road West. This is dual carriageway with a central reservation with several zebra crossings along its length. It also enjoys a 30mph speed restriction. Access to the existing Central Drive retail park is taken off this road - this route also forms part of the ‘Way of the Roses’ cycle route.

7.53 Within the immediate vicinity of the application site, the highway has a single carriageway some 13.8m wide with 3.2m footways to both sides. It also enjoys a 30mph speed limit with appropriate street lighting. On-street parking is not restricted in the location of the application site.

7.54 The main vehicular access to the site will be by way of a new traffic signal controlled junction on Marine Road West. This junction will include a pedestrian crossing facility. A further pedestrian crossing is proposed north of the main access vehicular access. Other connections from the site to adjoining land include the provision of an at-grade access from the site into the existing retail park on Central Drive, a stepped link to the south east connecting at the higher to the West End (via Grove Street) and an attempted at-grade connection to the rear of zone 5 onto Highfield Crescent. There are no details of the latter connection shown on the site plan. There are serious concerns over the suitability of this link as it abuts a service area to the public house and meets the site with no dedicated footway (excluded from the landscape plan).

7.55 Parking provision on site is contained in the centre of the site and comprises 336 spaces of which 25 will be dedicated for disabled use. The Council’s parking standard would require more parking spaces based on the floor areas of the proposed units. However, over-providing parking does not contribute to good design nor does it help encourage more sustainable modes of travel. County Highways requested and assessed a Car Parking Accumulation Assessment to ensure the level of parking proposed would not lead to periods of insufficient parking which would adversely affect the local highway network. County Highways have concluded the level of parking proposed would be adequate, although they question the car parking strategy. The application proposes 20 cycle spaces within the retail area, a further 20 cycle spaces within the café/restaurant area,10 spaces within the service yards for staff and 6 spaces adjacent to the hotel. County Highways question whether this is sufficient cycle parking provision, although it does not seem unreasonable. No details are provided in respect of the location and design of cycle parking, this would need to be agreed by condition.

7.56 The original Transport Assessment and highway proposals raised significant concerns to the County Highways and Planning Officers. The proposal raised a number of highway concerns in terms of capacity and pedestrian safety but also raised serious design concerns. This original scheme presented a layout which significantly increased traffic regulation and traffic management in a traditional (overly engineered) manner giving priority to vehicles. The original proposal (and the revised scheme), with the need for four running lanes of traffic, would make Marine Road West, an even greater barrier to free pedestrian movement. This would conflict with the spatial objectives of the MAAP.

7.57 It has been accepted that the changes on Marine Road West and other parts of the local network as a result of the delivery of the Heysham to M6 link, would provide an opportunity to consider more innovative ways of improving Morecambe seafront and balancing the needs of vehicular traffic and sustainable modes. Subsequently, all three parties came together back in July to discuss what could be done to resolve these concerns and find an appropriate highway solution (as required by paragraph 187, NPPF) and a scheme that would constitute a high quality designed scheme that would better integrate this large important site with the seafront (aspirations of the MAAP). The solution was to make a step change in the public realm to change the environment along the site frontage (and beyond where possible) from a car dominated environment to one where pedestrian movement is given a much greater level of priority.

7.58 In October – several months after initial discussions - the applicant provided their first revised highway/access plan. To the disappointment of both County and City Officers, the plan failed to deliver the previously-agreed step-change in the public realm and highway environment along the seafront. In fact the revised plan is not significantly different to the original plan submitted and rejected by Planning Officers and County Highways. County Highways have therefore raised formal objections to the proposal. For the avoidance of doubt, LCC comments are based on the first revised plan submitted despite a second revised plan being submitted only a few working days before this report was drafted (and after County Highways had drafted their response). For the purposes of consistency, the comments below refer to the first revised plan submitted. Any comments received in respect of the 2nd revised plan, and any subsequent revisions between now and the Committee date, will be verbally reported to Members.

7.59 Fundamentally the objection is one of concern over highway capacity and safety. These concerns are compounded by the failure of the applicant to adopt a more creative and imaginative highway layout which would allow scope for the highway to cope with the additional traffic and the increase in pedestrian movements likely to arise from this proposal. It is understood that the modelling originally used in assessing and designing the access proposal is more likely to be accepted if the scheme better catered for pedestrians and their movements across the carriageway. As matters stand there

are fundamental safety concerns with the proposed highway layout. These concerns are compounded by the level of personal injury accidents (PIAs) recorded on Marine Road West in the immediate vicinity of site frontage (a stretch of only 800m). Out of 18 recorded PIAs, a third of these involved pedestrians or cyclists. County Highways consider this to be a pattern of significance, particularly given that the former Frontierland site is closed and not generating any vehicular, pedestrian or cyclist movements. Given the seriousness of the prevalence of PIAs, the proposal would not comply with paragraph 32 of the NPPF and local planning policy.

7.60 The applicant has recently submitted a further revised plan, which County Highways are in the process of assessing at the time of compiling this report. However it still appears deficient because it does not commit to provide the direct access to the promenade from the uncontrolled crossing – which is the feature crossing into the development site. If such amendments were forthcoming and subject to County Highways supporting the scheme (and associated modelling), Officers would be able to recommend to Members that the principle of the development and its site access could be considered acceptable on highway grounds.

7.61 In addition to the fundamental amendments to the highway access layout, the applicant will also need to address concerns in respect of the internal layout (service vehicles reversing over a crossing), provide commitments to improve cycle/pedestrian connections across the adjacent retail park towards the town centre and railway/bus stations and address the comments in relation to the car parking strategy ahead of this committee. These matters are not considered insurmountable and are not overly-onerous given the significance of this scheme. Any late revisions will require some consultation with LCC to give them the opportunity to review conditions and s106 requirement to mitigate the impacts of the proposal on the network and improve sustainable travel. Officers have already highlighted these outstanding concerns (some more fundamental than others) with the applicant. The second revised plan appears to require further revision before Officers are satisfied that the development is safe with a suitable access that promotes and enhances other more sustainable modes of transport. However if the required amendments are not forthcoming, Members will be advised to reconsider the recommendation of approval and instead refuse planning permission in terms of impacts upon highway safety. A verbal update will be provided.

7.62 Design Design is integral to planning and delivering sustainable development (paragraph 56), It goes beyond the aesthetics of buildings and is about making appropriate connections with its surroundings – it is about place making. The proposed development has some positive design components and others that are much weaker. The scale, design, use (A3/A4) and massing of the buildings which front the highway helps create an appropriate frontage that is interesting and active – the raised platform and seating areas contribute to this (in fine weather admittedly). It also supports activity throughout the day into the evening creating – assuming that the A3/A4 uses will open longer – creating a more vibrant atmosphere to support a relatively weak evening economy that currently exists. The design and use of materials, whilst perhaps not befitting the traditions of the conservation area, are still complementary and will add to the overall quality of the area. Precise details and samples of all materials would be controlled by condition.

7.63 The development behind these smaller (lower) units follows a more typical format of an out-of-town retail park – large units with surrounding an expanse of car parking. The extent and treatment of the parking areas, active frontages and connections were of paramount importance when Officers were engaging with the developer at the pre-application stage. Attempts were made to convince the applicant to depart from their car-dominant layout, but with the exception of relatively minor changes, the car parking layout remains unaltered. It is however acknowledged that the applicant has appreciated the site’s prominent seafront location and has therefore proposed larger, more iconic, units on the prominent corners of the retail terraces to create markers both visible from the seafront and from within the scheme. Public spaces and activity is focused along the seafront – this design approach could be very successful if the highway layout proposal adopts a similar approach to public realm. This could then entice and encourage better integration with the seafront, making better connections with recreational areas (the promenade) and the existing centre, thereby capturing spend and supporting Morecambe’s economy. It is also contended that the rounded facades to the large unit flanking Marine Road West and the unit towards the link to the existing retail park are considered positive attributes of the overall design, although precise details of the cladding materials and patterns would need to be agreed by condition to secure good design. Cladding with inappropriate patterns/colours and poorly applied on the anchor unit on Marine Road West would be

detrimental to the streetscene and the amenity of the area, particularly given the lack of glazing on this facade.

7.64 Internally, the other units are not overly dissimilar to the retail units on the existing retail park. There are large areas of blank wall to the frontages and side elevations. This is most pronounced along the proposed connection to Central Drive Retail Park. Officers have requested amendments to this effect. Amendments are not forthcoming - the argument being that additional glazing would compromise internal fitting requirements of most retail operators.

7.65 It is acknowledged that the proposed scheme provides areas for people to dwell and congregate and that such spaces are integral to well-design places. How successful the proposed spaces will be will depends on quality of surface materials, landscaping, lighting and street furniture used. Limited detail is provided in the submission, but that provided on the revised Landscape Plan is not accepted. The detail/surface materials are poor and unnecessarily overly-complicated. A simpler and better-quality palette of materials and design would be more appropriate. For clarity, the surface materials and quality of street furniture and external lighting here must be high-quality, durable and must provide continuity in terms of the palette of surface material proposed within the highway and those within the proposed park itself. They should also replicate or complement other surface materials proposed for public realm works in the town, which the Council are currently preparing. Subsequently, it does not seem inappropriate or unreasonable to secure the precise details of the internal public realm at a later date by planning condition.

7.66 The connections that integrate the site to its surroundings are of equal importance. The connections from the site to the promenade are almost there, subject to the applicant revising the latest highway plan to create the opening in the sea wall. The connections to Central Drive are adequate but the floorspace and external lighting of these areas will be essential to ensure an acceptable connection. Much of the detail needed to achieve high quality spaces and public realm is absent from the submission, but it is accepted that the scheme provides the basics to make these spaces work, and the details can be controlled by condition. The connections to the West End are weak – only a stepped access to the south of the site. The at-grade connection onto Highfield Crescent is not considered a sufficient or legible connection. It is difficult to see how these connections would attract visitors of the proposed development to spill out and explore the quite diverse retail offer of the West End. That said, these are connections that have not previously existed and are seemingly supported by the majority of local residents.

7.67 With regards to the impact of the proposal on nearby designated heritage assets, it is contended that the sites vacant and poor condition at present does little to preserve or enhance the setting of these assets and that its redevelopment provides a significant opportunity to improve the current situation. This consideration affords significant weight in our assessment of the proposal. The Council’s Conservation Officer has raised no objections to the proposal. It is contended that the re-use of this vacant land will have a positive impact on the setting of the Midland Hotel – and this is reinforced by the curved design of one of the pivotal retail stores (zone 2). The setting on the Platform is less significant as it is more contained to its immediate surroundings and located behind other existing more modern development. Architectural detailing and materials can contribute to the impacts and as such, to ensure high quality design is achieved, conditions will be imposed in relation to architectural detailing and materials. Overall the re-development of the site is considered compliant with local and national planning policy.

7.68 Delivering high quality design will provide a regeneration benefit that Officers accept could have positive spin-offs for the existing centre (investor confidence, raising the retail profile of the town). The redevelopment of former Frontierland site provides an important opportunity to improve public impressions of Morecambe in addition to improving the local environment for residents. Whilst there are some weak design elements, overall it is accepted that subject to changes to the highway layout, and conditions to control the use, pattern an detailing of surface materials, architectural details, landscaping, street furniture and lighting, the proposal would constitute acceptable design and would be a marked improvement that the existing vacant site.

7.69 Residential Amenity The residents most affected by the proposal are those that overlook the site on Highfield Crescent. The most immediate impact is the loss of trees along the southern boundary and the erection of a three storey hotel building located adjacent to the boundary with this street. Officers had raised concern over this element of the scheme at the pre-application stage and have continued to seek

amendments to reduce the level of impact. One way of doing this would have been pulling the hotel further away from the boundary and provide replacement landscaping. This has not been forthcoming. However, the applicant has considered this relationship and has taken advantage of the level differences between the site and Highfield Crescent and stepped the building to help reduce its impact by breaking up the overall bulk of the development. The design of the roof and the roofing materials (in its amended form) help anchor the building to the ground. The separation between the residential development and the building is also in excess of the required 21m set out in SPG 12 and DM35. Overall the impact on adjacent residential areas are considered acceptable. A number of conditions are recommended to protect residential amenity, particularly in relation to the hotel and leisure uses on site. Whilst the loss of landscaping is disappointing, the development would be a positive improvement over the current status of the site and indeed over that when the amusement park was in operation. Residents have not raised any significant objection to the scheme but those comments that have been received in relation to Highfield Crescent seem more concerned over parking, in particular staff parking. Impacts during construction can be minimised through an appropriate construction method plan which would be a condition of this permission, if Members were minded to grant consent.

7.70 Biodiversity Emerging policy DO6 requires proposals on the former Frontierland site to consider the impacts of the development on the adjacent European designated nature conservation sites. The applicant has provided sufficient information to enable the authority to undertake a Habitat Regulations Assessment. The project is considered to have the potential to impact on the SPA/RAMSAR site by disturbance during construction, pollution though construction and disturbance through increased recreational activity along the foreshore. Paragraph 119 of the NPPF, states that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requirement appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive is being considered, planning or determined. This applies to this case. Based on the additional information provided by the applicant, the authority has carried out a Screening Habitats Regulations Assessment which concludes that the Council, as the Competent Authority, can conclude there will be no likely significant effects on the Morecambe Bay SPA/Ramsar Site as a consequence of this proposal. Natural England are satisfied with this conclusion. Other concerns have been raised by County Ecology indicating that the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient compensation (off-site or via a commuted sum) for the loss of Habitat of Principal Importance (Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land) and that the NPPF does not encourage the reuse of previously developed land that is of high environmental value (paragraphs 17 and 111). The County Ecologist also questions the robustness of the conclusions drawn in respect protected species. Officers contend sufficient and proportionate evidence has been submitted in respect of protected species to conclude that the proposal would not lead to a breach of the Habitat Regulations. As for the loss of habitat, it is regrettable, but in this instance the benefits of the proposal would outweigh the loss of biodiversity in this respect. The loss of trees can be mitigated by soft landscaping that forms part of the proposed retaining embankment and additional tree planting within the site.

7.71 Other considerations – flood risk/contamination/noise The application has been accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) which confirms the site is predominantly located within flood zone 1, although flood zone 2 encroaches the southern part of the site. There is no requirement of this proposal to consider the sequential or exception tests which would normally only be applied for higher risk flood zones. This site clearly benefits from the existing sea defences present along the seafront. The key test is to ensure the proposal does not lead to a flood risk elsewhere. On this basis a drainage assessment has also been provided. This surface water drainage scheme assumes some attenuation of surface water will be required on site in reduce the discharge rates to the public sewer – equivalent to greenfield rates given the sites vacancy. This can be achieved by over-sized pipework, cellular storage, hydrobrake flow controls and permeable paving. The fundamental approach to the surface water drainage appears reasonable and would not in any event be insurmountable. However, United Utilities have indicated they would not accept the surface water to the public sewer. Further information has been provided by the applicant concluding, based on the building regulation hierarchy for surface water drainage, that discharging to the public sewer is the most practical solution. Officers are awaiting a further response from United Utilities. A verbal update will be provided. The Environment Agency have not objected to the proposal.

7.72 Matters in relation to contamination have been satisfactorily addressed subject to the imposition of standard contaminated land conditions. A noise assessment has also been submitted to assess

existing background noise level to ascertain appropriate noise limits for services, plant, particularly given the proximity of the development to residential areas. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the noise assessment. Environmental Health recommend a condition to this effect.

7.73 Planning Balance – Scenarios When considering the policy considerations in this case the impacts on the districts main shopping centres and their future regeneration are a primary consideration. The policy advice in this matter highlights risks associated with supporting this application and despite considerable local excitement about the proposal, these must be very carefully considered. The obvious benefits associated with regenerating this particular high profile site have to be weighed against the risks of undermining other regeneration objectives in the district’s Primary sub regional shopping centre (Lancaster), which benefits all residents of the district and its hinterland, and the important district centre of Morecambe which is important for local residents and the district’s visitor economy.

7.74 7.75

In each case there are significant regeneration proposals being considered which could help to transform the district’s shopping offer which is identified as underperforming on a number of fronts. For Lancaster the Canal Corridor North project is a major investment at a crucial stage in its development, and for Morecambe the opportunities arising from the MAAP need to be carefully considered. To help evaluate the risks associated with approving the development suggested by Opus North it is useful to consider a number of scenarios as there is a lack of certainty surrounding this proposal. Commercial research undertaken for the MAAP suggests a lack of strong retailer interest waiting to take up floor space in Morecambe. Despite being asked to confirm genuine interest the applicants have only been prepared to indicate the names of companies who have declared a requirement for floor space in the town. It doesn’t help that at least two of those names have been the subject of negative business reports about their trading position in the last 12 months. This evidence suggests that the scenarios the Council must consider are threefold:-

A) That the development is approved and attracts a set of strong quality retailers and

food and drink outlets.

B) That the development is approved but attracts only discount retailers and low quality

retail and food and drink outlets

C) That the development is refused.

If the impact on the Council’s two important town centre regeneration projects is considered against each of these scenarios, Members will get a better idea of the risks if any of departing from the Development Plan in this particular case.

7.76 Scenario A : Quality Retail / Food and Drink Concern has been raised by British Land that the scheme may attract a range of quality retailers which would otherwise be attracted to the Canal Corridor North where their presence would strengthen the district’s primary centre. Whilst this is understood, it is also important to examine past trends in terms of retailer provision in the district, particularly where they duplicate each other on either side of the River. The long standing problems with travel between the two centres have significantly affected the way retailers have sought to make provision in the district. Sainsbury’s for example are represented on both sides of the river and investment in one store has not prejudiced investment in the other. The same has occurred with Next. There are retailers who will always prefer to site in accessible primary centres with a more sub regional draw, and even with the benefits deriving from the Heysham/M6 link Road, Morecambe perhaps is unlikely to attract such operations as the location of choice instead of the primary centre, even in an out-of-centre location. On the balance of probabilities therefore quality operations would probably be in the form of retailers who might also operate in Lancaster or quality food operations which will cater for the very different visitor/shopper to Morecambe who are in the town for quite different reasons than trips to Lancaster centre.

7.77 In terms of the impact on Morecambe Centre it is clear that to date the level of regeneration that has taken place on Morecambe seafront has not generated radical change in the quality of the towns existing retail offer. Recent evidence from the new visitor branding work has revealed a high level of

visitor satisfaction with the regenerated areas and reasonable assumptions that there is a significant degree of untapped expenditure which could be diverted to a quality retail and food and drink hub close to the Promenade. The Morecambe Area Action Plan promotes the potential use of the Festival Market area of improving leisure and retail capacity closer to Morecambe Town Centre and generating linkages with it. There is clear logic to that approach. Notwithstanding the desirability of siting new retail and food and drink facilities closer to the Town Centre, this alternative site not available and the applicant has satisfied the sequential test in this regard. Developing Frontierland for uses which if sited physically adjoining the town centre could attract more footfall into it, is a less preferable solution. However so is continuing to fail to capture spend from the considerable footfall generated on the Promenade, which goes away disappointed at the present time. On balance when considering all these factors, one of the most important considerations for Morecambe at this time is to prevent the good work that has been carried out in halting the further decline of the town, from being undone by continuing disappointment (for visitors) with the towns retail offer. This scheme, in this location could provide a much needed boost to that offer both in retail terms, food and drink offerings and accommodation, provided however the pedestrian connections to the seafront are revised and contributions towards improving public realm in the town centre and linkages are provided. It could also provide the encouragement needed for other investment in the town centre by the demonstration of investor confidence and eventually encouraging an uplift in private sector activity in the town centre boosted by the potential to retain retail spend.

7.78 Scenario B : Discounters/Fast food If as suggested by retail intelligence provided to the City Council the scheme is largely speculative and is unable to attract a higher quality of high street retailer the scheme could result in empty units or being filled by discount retailers and fast food outlets. If this were the case there would be no real impact on the main primary centre in Lancaster, though there could be impact on Morecambe centre if any of the existing discount stores in the town centre (and especially the Arndale Centre and surroundings) decided to relocate to this site out of the town centre. There are fast food chains which are not represented in the town, but equally the introduction of new national chains would most likely have an impact on independent traders in the town. The main risk which has to be highlighted to Members is that attached to a permission which disappoints in the delivery phase. It is very easy during public consultation to raise excitement and confidence within Morecambe that a new investment will be delivered. This has been done on a number of occasions and indeed once before on this site with a now lapsed permission for a factory outlet facility. The real key is delivering on promises which produce the sort of retailers anticipated by the community engagement, in a consents regime which cannot control which users takes the units. A planning permission if granted can go as far as regulating the use classes allowed on the site and their proportion if appropriate in planning terms, such as restricting the floor areas per unit to minimum areas and avoiding sub-division, in order to secure a larger retail units that presently do not exist in the existing centre. What it cannot do however is regulate the quality and identity of particular retailers who will take the first tenancies. Nor can it require the retention of that quality in the future. In this case, as supported by the retail considerations above, this could lead to a proposal that would adversely affect the existing town centre and compromise the spatial objectives of the MAAP. Given that risk, Members have to consider the risks associated with a level of disappointment that might occur if the scheme does not deliver a qualitative addition to Morecambe’s retail offer. Another risk will of course be the loss of an available brownfield site to attract a quality development to in the future if housing or leisure demand were to improve. Balanced against this is the historic legacy of a lack of developer interest in the site even during the last period of economic prosperity and a continuation of the scenario which will be described next under Scenario C.

7.79 Scenario C : Refusal of the proposals The refusal of the proposal could be justified if Members took the view that the evidence were not strong enough to justify a departure from planning policy. That evidence if it had to be defended at appeal would have to show that the scheme would undermine other objectives in the Development Plan such as the regeneration of Morecambe and Lancaster centres, and not deliver such benefits in its own right to warrant the risks associated with that Development Plan conflict. The agents have referred to a recent decision by the Secretary of State in Northamptonshire where the Minister was convinced that an out of centre scheme presented scope for regeneration and jobs and would not undermine other regeneration opportunities in surrounding towns. Interestingly and similar to retail spend characteristics in Lancaster District and around Morecambe Bay, the Northamptonshire also cited leakage to other areas and the need to become more self-contained as an incentive to approve that scheme. The potential impacts on Morecambe and Lancaster Centres have already been rehearsed in the earlier scenarios. In Scenario C the effect of leaving the site available for other

development has to be considered. The lapsing of the Factory Outlet consent around a decade ago has already been mentioned. The potential for a very high quality residential scheme on the site was dashed in 2008 when the house builder promoting it fell victim to the recession. Since then the site has been the regular focus for criticism and frustration almost being seen locally as a barometer for the town’s economic health. Even if the site were not developed by this scheme, on the basis of past performance it is highly unlikely that another viable land use would be forthcoming in the foreseeable future. These considerations do not in any way suggest that the site should be developed at any cost. However if balancing arguments about the departure were to be weighed by value attached to other redevelopment potential on the site, at the current time that weight should be very light.

7.80 It is clear that there are upside and downside risks associated with this proposal and that in reaching a decision, Members have to be fully mindful of these risks/scenarios. It is clear that there are without doubt significant regeneration benefits of this proposal, however, the extent to which they would outweigh the potential impacts (depending on the scenarios discussed above) is questionable. The most significant concern is clearly in respect to the impacts to Morecambe Town Centre and the conflict the proposal has with the objectives set in the MAAP. To try and alleviate these concerns, Officers have been (and continue) to negotiate with the applicant to secure appropriate mitigation. This is in the form of improvements to existing and proposed connections to the seafront and the existing centre. A Section 106 contribution is offered by the applicant to the sum of £200,000. This is to deliver a way-finding scheme – which will aim to navigate visitors around the town with clear focus on directing people to the existing centre from other destinations – and money to secure improvements to the town centre to deliver enhanced public realm within the town, which supports work ongoing by the Regeneration Service. The aim being to capture expenditure and encourage linked trips to therefore benefit the whole of the town and its regeneration aims. This can also be achieved by delivering a high quality designed development that physically integrates better with the seafront. Quality development could raise expectations and confidence in the town to support further investment. The applicant currently indicates that the s106 contribution could be used to create the opening in the seawall at the uncontrolled crossing. Officers contend that this should form part of the highway and access layout to be delivered via condition (not s106), leaving the contribution to mitigate potential impacts of the proposal by supporting the delivery of some of the key regeneration aims of the MAAP. In the event the applicant supports the above, officers find that benefits of the proposal would outweigh the potential impacts and conflict with the Development Plan and emerging planning policy. In the event that the applicant does not revise their offer in this respect, officer’s find that the risks are weighted negatively.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 The NPPF is clear at paragraph 203 that planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition. Paragraph 204 goes on to confirm that planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:

Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

Directly related to the development; and

Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development; It is clear from the considerations noted above, that there are potential likely significant impacts that could arise from the development. The test is whether the benefits, such as the removal of the vacant land, employment generation and investor confidence is sufficient to outweigh that harm and ultimately a departure from the development plan and emerging policy. In decision-taking it is clearly a matter of the weight afforded to those impacts and benefits. As matters stand at present, officers find the balance is weighted towards a more negative conclusion. The proposal needs to adequately demonstrate sufficient measures have been explored to minimise impacts on the existing centres, by providing opportunities to capture footfall and expenditure between the development site and the existing centres. Improvements to the highway layout and the delivery of the full contribution of £200,000 to go towards public realm projects in the centre and wayfinding could allow the balance to be tipped towards a more positive conclusion. This is a matter still under consideration as it is fundamentally linked to the highway considerations of the proposal too. A verbal update will be provided.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 9.2

The site is allocated as a Tourism Opportunity Site in the saved policies of the Local Plan, but more importantly within the emerging MAAP an opportunity site which should predominately consist of residential development. Local planning policy does not encourage retail development on this site at all. Similarly, significant comparison retail development should in the first instance be directed to Lancaster in accordance with the adopted retail hierarchy. Based on our retail evidence base, whilst there could be capacity for retail development in Lancaster and Morecambe, the key test is whether the retail proposed meets the regeneration needs of Morecambe. This is where a very careful balance has to be made and the scenarios above should assist in that consideration. There is no doubt that the proposal will bring some significant regeneration benefits. As matters stand at present, there are significant highway safety concerns that need to be overcome in reach to make a positive recommendation. However there is a clear solution to this which has been discussed with the applicant some time ago. It is hoped that amendments and supporting information to resolve the highway concerns will be forthcoming. If not, Officers would – in consultation with County Highways - have to recommend refusal on highway grounds. Overcoming the highway concerns also assists in providing improved connections with the seafront (and beyond) and will help deliver a well-design scheme which could raise the profile of the town in such a prominent location – a another regeneration benefit. The scheme will generate jobs and if delivered in a manner which provides the ‘quality scenario’ most certainly boost and support the exiting town centre economy – a further regeneration benefit. Overall, however, given the sites out-of-town location it is imperative that if Members support the proposal on the grounds that the development provides sufficient regeneration benefits that would outweigh the conflict with planning policy, sufficient measures are secured to ensure the scheme is not disconnected to the seafront and the existing Town Centre.

Recommendation

Subject to the applicant resolving all outstanding matters, that Planning Permission BE GRANTED (with subsequent referral of the decision to the Secretary of State), subject to the following conditions and a legal agreement to secure the town centre mitigation contribution: 1 Time Limit 2 Approved Plans (list) 3 Use condition – limiting the zone/units to that applied for 4 Retail floor areas (to secure the larger units currently not on offer in the centre) no subdivision

5 Use of external spaces associated with leisure uses (A3/A4) to be limited to hours of 0800 - 2200 6 No external amplified music 7 Access details and scheme for implementation (TBC) 8 Off-site highway works and scheme for implementation (TBC) 9 Precise details of all connections and scheme for implementation, including details of retaining

structure along southern boundary (TBC) 10 Precise details of secure cycle parking provision 11 Car parking layout and provision 12 Travel Plan Framework 13 Car parking management plan to be implemented (TBC) 14 Delivery strategy plan to be implemented 15 Construction method statement (including method statement for the removal of the polo tower) 16 Hours of construction 17

Notwithstanding details submitted, details of all public realm works on and off site (floorscape, street furniture, external lighting) including all boundary treatment details to be agreed

18 Finished flood levels to be agreed 19 Notwithstanding details submitted external materials and sample panels to be provided 20 Precise details of window/door/curtain glazing/canopy/flues/extractor vents/external plant to be

agreed 21 Scheme for security measures and designing out crime, CCTV, lighting, shutters etc 22 Development to be implemented in accordance with FRA 23 Drainage details 24 Installation of oil and petrol interceptors 25 Landscaping Scheme and maintenance to be agreed

26 Development to be implemented in accordance with Noise Assessment Article 31, Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010

In accordance with the above legislation, the City Council can confirm the following: For the reasons stated in the report, this proposal departs from policies within the Development Plan. However, taking into account the other material considerations which are presented in full in the report, it is considered that on this occasion (provided the outstanding matters are satisfactorily addressed by the applicant) these outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan, and in this instance the proposal can be considered favourably. In reaching this recommendation the local planning authority and the applicant have positively and proactively addressed the issues (and continue to do so) to enable a recommendation of approval (subject to the matters identified being satisfied) to be reached.

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has been reached after consideration of the provisions of The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law. Background Papers

None