retail and housing planning policies...

Retail and Housing Planning Policies Statement

Mixed use application proposal at Moss Tavern, 99-101 Ashton Road, Droylsden

On behalf of Uppal Convenience Stores Limited

March 2017

HV110

Final

HV110 Moss Tavern, Droylsden – Retail & Housing Statement

HV110 | March 2017

Contents

1 INSTRUCTIONS AND OUTLINE OF STATEMENT 1 Instructions ................................................................................................................................. 1 The Application Site .................................................................................................................... 1 Planning History ......................................................................................................................... 3 The Application Proposal............................................................................................................ 4 Structure of our Statement ......................................................................................................... 6

2 THE REQUIREMENTS OF NATIONAL POLICY 7 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 7 Sustainable Development .......................................................................................................... 7 The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development .......................................................... 7 Core Planning Principles ............................................................................................................ 9 Building a Strong, Competitive Economy ................................................................................... 9 Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres ...................................................................................... 10 Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes .................................................................... 12 Decision Taking ........................................................................................................................ 12 Overall Conclusions in Relation to the NPPF ........................................................................... 12

3 APPRAISAL OF THE APPLICATION AGAINST THE HOUSING AND RETAIL POLICY ASPECTS

OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 14 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 14 The Development Plan for Tameside ....................................................................................... 14 The Tameside Unitary Development Plan ............................................................................... 15 The Emerging LDF ................................................................................................................... 21 Conclusion in Relation to the Development Plan ..................................................................... 21

4 THE SEQUENTIAL TEST 22 Requirements of the NPPF ....................................................................................................... 22 National Planning Policy Guidance (the NPPG) ...................................................................... 23 The Supreme Court Judgment in Dundee ................................................................................ 24 Area of Search .......................................................................................................................... 25 Conclusion in Relation to the Sequential Approach ................................................................. 31

5 RETAIL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS 32 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 32 Droylsden District Centre .......................................................................................................... 32 Small Local Parade to the East of the Application Site ............................................................ 33 Audenshaw Local Parade ......................................................................................................... 35 Conclusion in Relation to Retail Impacts .................................................................................. 35

6 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 36 Localised Need ......................................................................................................................... 36 Site Specific Regeneration Benefits ......................................................................................... 36 Improving Surveillance and Reducing Antisocial Behaviour .................................................... 36 Support for Droylsden District Centre ....................................................................................... 37 Improved Range and Choice of Goods .................................................................................... 37 Employment Creation ............................................................................................................... 37 Permitted Development Rights ................................................................................................. 37

7 CONCLUSIONS 38 Overall Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 38


HV110 | March 2017

Appendix 1 – Annotated extract of Tameside’s Interactive UDP Proposals Map – showing the location of nearby centres and local parades Appendix 2 – WYG’s Recommended Primary Shopping Area for Droylsden District Centre, as illustrated in Appendix 6 of its Tameside Retail Study 2010 Appendix 3 – Extract from Tameside’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2014 North West Map, which identifies the housing land supply within Tameside between 2014 and 2029 Appendix 4 – Annotated Experian Goad Plan, but with GM Pension Fund Building added by HollissVincent Appendix 5 – Annotated Promap Plan of the small local parade located between the application site and Audenshaw local parade Appendix 6 – Annotated Promap Plan of Audenshaw local parade


HV110 | March 2017 1

1 INSTRUCTIONS AND OUTLINE OF STATEMENT

Instructions

1.1 In August 2016, hollissvincent was commissioned by Uppal Convenience Stores Ltd to

undertake an appraisal of the retail and housing policy aspects of a mixed use planning

application proposal at Moss Tavern, 99-101 Ashton Road, Droylsden.

The Application Site

1.2 The application site comprises a trapezoidal shaped parcel of previously developed land,

measuring approximately 1,941 sq. m, and it is located in a prominent location on the

northern side of Ashton Road. The site currently contains the vacant two storey Moss

Tavern public house (Photo 1), with single storey rear additions, an adjacent smoking

area, a dilapidated children’s play area, a detached single storey outbuilding, an

overgrown grassed area, a vehicle access point from Ashton Road, a vehicle parking area

and overgrown boundary landscaping.

Photo 1: View northwards towards the application site from Ashton Road

1.3 As evident in Image 1 overleaf, the application site is bounded by Ashton Road and a

Metrolink line to the south, a three storey residential development known as Budworth

Gardens to the west, a two storey residential development known as Tatton Mere Drive

to the north, and a public footpath to Lee’s Park and a filling station to the east.


HV110 | March 2017 2

Image 1: Aerial View of the Application Site (Source: Google Maps)

1.4 The former public house has been vacant since September 2013, with both the existing

building and its curtilage falling into a state of disrepair, as evident in Photo 2 below.

Consequently, the deteriorated status of the site now seriously detracts from the visual

appearance of the area, so that it is in urgent need of redevelopment.

Photo 2: Views to and within the application site


HV110 | March 2017 3

1.5 The site is located approximately 137m from the boundary of Droylsden District Centre,

as shown on the Tameside Unitary Development Plan (the UDP) Proposals Map (see

Appendix 1). Moreover, we note that the application site is located approximately 233m

from Droylsden District Centre’s Primary Shopping Area, as recommended by WYG’s

Tameside Retail Study 2010 (see Appendix 2), so that it is in an ‘edge-of-centre’ location,

as per the definition in Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF).

1.6 The site is in a highly accessible location and is also well connected to the District Centre.

Indeed, the site’s accessibility credentials are further improved by the proximity of two

Metrolink stops, with the Droylsden stop located approximately 200m to the west and

the Audenshaw stop located approximately 700m to the east. In addition, bus stops to

the west of the site (20m eastbound and 70m westbound) provide frequent services to a

number of locations, such as Manchester, Stockport, Ashton-under-Lyne and Stalybridge.

Planning History

1.7 Having reviewed Tameside Council’s online public access website, we found only one

previous planning application for the site, this being Ref: 14/00861/FUL, which was for

the ‘Demolition of existing public house and erection of a four storey apartment building

containing 33no. two bed and 1no. one bed apartments and associated works’.

1.8 This previous planning application was refused by Council, by way of notice, dated 25

February 2015, for the following reasons:

‘The proposal, by virtue of its siting, scale and massing in close proximity to Ashton

Road would form an incongruous and alien feature within the street scene and would

fail to enhance the appearance of the area. As such it is contrary to UDP Policies H10

and C1 and the Residential Design SPD policy RD2.

The proposal, by reason of its scale height and massing in close proximity to the flats

on Budworth Gardens and Tatton Mere Drive would give rise to undue

overshadowing, loss of light, overlooking and loss of privacy to the detriment of the

amenity that the adjoining occupants could reasonably expect to enjoy. As such the

proposal is contrary to UDP Policy H10 and the Residential Design SPD policy RD5’.


HV110 | March 2017 4

1.9 Our client subsequently lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate (Ref:

APP/G4240/W/15/3027416), and in her decision notice, the Inspector summarised the

main issues of the case, which reflected the two grounds for refusal, as being:

‘The effect of the development proposed on the character and appearance of the

area; and

The effect of the development proposed on the living conditions of neighbouring

residents, with particular regard to light and privacy’.

1.10 The appeal was dismissed by the Planning Inspector on 14 October 2015, and both

grounds for refusal were upheld. Nevertheless, despite the refusal of the previous

planning application, and the dismissal of the planning appeal, it was accepted in the

Speakers Panel Report, of 13th February 2015 (at the final paragraph), and in the

abovementioned appeal decision (at Paragraph 20), that the application site is in a

sustainable location, and that the redevelopment of the site is welcomed. Indeed, in

Paragraph 20 of the appeal decision, the Inspector states that ‘These are matters which

weigh in favour of the appeal scheme’.

The Application Proposal

1.11 The design and scale of the current proposal has been shaped by various discussions

between the Council’s officers and the applicant’s consultants, as well as by the

comments received during a public consultation event, which was held in the Parish

Church of Saint Mary’s Droylsden on the 12th October 2016. Consequently, this full

planning application proposes to demolish the vacant Moss Tavern pub (previously Use

Class A4), so as to construct a three storey mixed use development that contains the

following components, as illustrated by JDA Architects’ supporting plans:

Ground Floor

a convenience store retail unit (Use Class A1) with a gross internal area of 300 sq. m

that is to be operated as a local Spar (with a net sales area of 226 sq. m, an ancillary

office area of 8.7 sq. m, a storage area of 17 sq.m and a W/C);


HV110 | March 2017 5

an undercroft providing for 29 car parking spaces, of which 20 are secured spaces for

residents and 9 are customer parking spaces for the convenience store;

vehicular circulation space and two vehicular access points with a one-way in and a

one-way out access arrangement;

16 bicycle parking spaces, with 12 secured residential spaces and 4 customer spaces;

a secured main lobby area at the western end of the proposed building with a lift

core, a stairwell, post boxes, a plant room and a meter cupboard;

a secured secondary access/exit point and stairwell for residents at the eastern end

of the proposed building;

street level access paths to the residential lobby, secondary residential access point

and the proposed retail unit;

an enclosed waste bin storage area; and

associated hard and soft landscaping.

First Floor

four one-bedroom apartments with modern amenities, including a balcony and

storage space;

six two-bedroom apartments with modern amenities, including a balcony and storage

space;

a residential lobby area, with a lift core and a landlord storage area;

internal circulation space and two stairwells located at each end of the proposed

building; and

two 1.5 sq.m smoke shafts to provide ventilation for the under-croft car parking area.

Second Floor

This floor will contain the same elements as the first floor.

1.12 Thus, the development will contain eight one-bedroom apartments and 12 two-bedroom

apartments.


HV110 | March 2017 6

Structure of our Statement

1.13 The remainder of our statement is structured as follows:

Section 2 – provides a resume of those aspects of the National Planning Policy

Framework (the NPPF) which are of most relevance to the application proposal;

Section 3 – provides our appraisal of the application in relation to the retail and

housing policy aspects of the development plan;

Section 4 – provides our appraisal of the convenience food store component of the

application proposal in relation to the sequential test, set out in Paragraph 24 of the

NPPF;

Section 5 – confirms that the impact tests set out in Paragraph 26 of the NPPF are not

applicable to the convenience store component of the application proposal, but

provides reassurance that there will be no material impacts on investment or on

trading levels in Droylsden District Centre or on nearby parades nevertheless; and

Section 6 – provides our conclusions.

1.14 Our Statement is accompanied by six appendices.


HV110 | March 2017 7

2 THE REQUIREMENTS OF NATIONAL POLICY

Introduction

2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) was published on 27th March 2012.

Paragraphs 2, 11, 12, 150, 196 and 210 of the NPPF emphasise that planning law requires

that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the

development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Paragraph 13

confirms that the NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions.

Sustainable Development

2.2 Paragraph 6 of the NPPF explains that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute

to the achievement of sustainable development and that Paragraphs 18 to 219 of the

Framework, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable

development in England means in practice for the planning system. Paragraphs 7 and 8

of the NPPF then explain that there are three dimensions to sustainable development –

economic, social and environmental – and that these are mutually dependant, so that

gains in each should be sought jointly and simultaneously.

The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

2.3 Under the heading of ‘the presumption in favour of sustainable development’, Paragraph

12 confirms that the NPPF ‘…does not change the statutory status of the development

plan as the starting point for decision making’. Thus, Paragraph 12 states that:

‘…development that accords with an up-to-date local plan should be approved and

proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material

considerations indicate otherwise’.

2.4 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF then sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable

development in more detail and says that it ‘…should be seen as a golden thread running

through both plan-making and decision-taking’.


HV110 | March 2017 8

2.5 For decision-taking this means1:

‘approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without

delay; and

where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant polices are out-of-date,

granting permission unless:

- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh

the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a

whole (our emphasis); or

- specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.’

2.6 The development plan for Tameside comprises the saved policies of the Tameside Unitary

Development Plan (the UDP), adopted in November 2004 and Paragraph 215 of the NPPF

advises that ‘…due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according

to their degree of consistency with this Framework…’.

2.7 For the reasons sets out in Section 3 of our Statement, and those set out in the

supporting Design and Access and Transport Statements, we consider that the application

proposal does accord with the development plan, so that, in accordance with the first

bullet point of Paragraph 14 of the NPPF, it should be approved without delay.

2.8 Furthermore, we consider that the second decision-taking bullet point in Paragraph 14 of

the NPPF also comes into force because some of the relevant policies in the development

plan are out-of-date. For example, Policy S6, which is the most relevant development

management policy for the small convenience foodstore, refers merely to ‘adverse’

effects on the vitality and viability of established centres, whereas Paragraph 27 of the

NPPF requires an assessment of whether the application is likely to have a ‘significant

adverse impact’ (our emphasis).

2.9 So far as the residential component of the application proposal is concerned, we note

that whilst the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, published in 2014 (the

SHLAA), was able to identify a 5.2 year housing land supply, more recent appeal decisions

1 Unless material considerations indicate otherwise.


HV110 | March 2017 9

suggest that this is no longer the case. Thus, in an appeal decision of February 2015 (Ref:

APP/G4240/A/14/2223812), the Inspector concluded (paragraph 9) that the Council was

unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing, and in February 2016

(APP/G4240/W15/3132621), both the appellant and the Council accepted the absence of

a five year supply (Paragraph 15). Thus, in light of these appeals, we consider that the

relevant housing supply policies of the UDP are out-of-date, these being H2, H4 and H7.

2.10 It seems clear, therefore, that the application proposal benefits from the presumption in

favour of sustainable development set by Paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

Core Planning Principles

2.11 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF then sets out 12 core planning principles which it says ‘…should

underpin both plan-making and decision-taking’. These principles, amongst other things,

include the need for the planning system to:

be genuinely plan-led;

be a creative exercise that seeks to enhance and improve the places in which people

live and not simply about scrutiny;

be a proactive driver of sustainable economic development, so as to deliver the

homes, business, industry and infrastructure that are needed;

secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity;

be aware of the different roles and character of different areas and promote the

vitality of our main urban areas;

encourage the effective use of previously developed land that is not of high

environmental value;

promote mixed use developments; and

make the fullest use of public transport, walking and cycling and focus significant

development in locations which are, or can be made, sustainable.

Building a Strong, Competitive Economy

2.12 Paragraph 18 of the NPPF explains that the Government is committed to securing

economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity and meet the twin challenges of


HV110 | March 2017 10

global competition and a low carbon future. Paragraph 19 goes on to state that the

Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to

support sustainable economic growth. In order to achieve such growth, Paragraphs 20

and 21 emphasise the need to meet the development needs of business and to address

potential barriers to investment, including a poor environment, or any lack of

infrastructure, services or housing.

Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres

2.13 Paragraphs 23 to 27 of the NPPF deal with the need to promote the vitality of town

centres. Paragraph 23 states that planning policies should promote competitive town

centre environments and that, in drawing up local plans, LPAs should, amongst other

things:

recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and support their vitality

and viability;

promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail

offer;

ensure that needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses are met

in full and are not compromised by limited site availability, so that local planning

authorities should undertake an assessment of the need to expand town centres to

ensure a sufficient supply of suitable sites;

allocate appropriate sites for main town centre uses in accordance with the

sequential approach; and

plan positively for centres in decline.

2.14 Paragraph 24 then sets out the sequential test that applies to planning applications for

main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an

up-to-date Local Plan. Paragraph 24 states that ‘…applications for main town centres uses

should be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations, and only if suitable

sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered’. In considering edge and

out-of-centre proposals, Paragraph 24 states that ‘…preference should be given to

accessible sites that are well-connected to the town centre’.


HV110 | March 2017 11

2.15 In applying the sequential approach, Paragraph 24 requires applicants and local planning

authorities to demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale. However, in

contrast to the provisions of Policy EC 15.1d of the former PPS4, Paragraph 24 of the

NPPF makes no specific mention of the words ‘car parking’ and ‘disaggregation’ in

applying the flexibility component of the test.

2.16 Paragraph 26 of the NPPF then sets out the impact tests for applications for retail, leisure

and office development that is located outside town centres and which is not in

accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. Paragraph 26 requires applications for such

development, which are over 2,500 sq.m, or a locally set threshold, to include an

assessment of:

a) ‘the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private

investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and

b) ‘the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local

consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from

the time the application is made’.

2.17 However, in Tameside the locally set threshold is 1,400 sq. m gross, as set out in the

explanatory wording to Policy S3. As a consequence, the NPPF impact tests do not apply

to the convenience foodstore component of the application proposal.

2.18 Paragraph 27 of the NPPF then confirms that ‘Where an application fails to satisfy the

sequential test or is likely to have a significant adverse impact on one or more of the

above factors [in paragraph 26], it should be refused’. However, it is clear from recent

Court Judgments (such as the High Court Judgment of 20 December 2012, in respect of

the Queen on the application of Zurich Assurance Limited and North Lincolnshire Council

and Simons Developments Limited) that Paragraph 27 of the NPPF is not necessarily

determinative, if there are weighty material considerations which displace its

presumption for refusal in the event of a failure of the sequential and/or impact tests.


HV110 | March 2017 12

Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes

2.19 Paragraphs 47 to 55 of the NPPF, set out various requirements for local planning

authorities with respect to the supply of housing and housing land within urban and rural

areas so as to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home

ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.

2.20 So far as development management is concerned, Paragraph 49 states that ‘Housing

applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of

sustainable development’. Furthermore, Paragraph 49 goes on to state that ‘Relevant

policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning

authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites’ (our

emphasis). For the reasons already explained, Tameside is in the position of not being

able to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land, so the application proposal will

help, albeit in a small way, to address the under supply for housing.

Decision Taking

2.21 Finally, we draw attention to Paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF. Paragraph 186 states

that local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster

the delivery of sustainable development. Paragraph 187 reinforces the point in stating

that ‘local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and

decision takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable

development where possible’ and work with applicants to ‘…secure developments that

improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area’.

Overall Conclusions in Relation to the NPPF

2.22 The NPPF establishes a number of fundamental principles which are of relevance in

determining the application proposal; we draw attention, in particular, to the following:

a) The NPPF emphasises the role of the development plan as the statutory starting point

in the consideration of planning applications, so that applications which accord with

an up-to-date development plan should be approved without delay, whereas if there

is conflict with the development plan, applications should be refused, unless material

considerations indicate otherwise.


HV110 | March 2017 13

b) The NPPF itself is a material consideration to which we give significant weight.

c) Due weight should be given to the relevant policies in an existing development plan

according to their degree of consistency with the policies of the NPPF.

d) In decision taking, the presumption in favour of ‘sustainable development’ applies not

only where development proposals accord with the development plan, but also in

circumstances where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are

out-of-date, as is the case in Tameside.

2.23 In our view, it is clear that the application proposal benefits from the presumption in

favour of sustainable development and should be permitted, unless:

a) any adverse impacts of doing so, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the

benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or

b) specific policies in the NPPF indicate that such development should be restricted.


HV110 | March 2017 14

3 APPRAISAL OF THE APPLICATION AGAINST THE HOUSING

AND RETAIL POLICY ASPECTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Introduction

3.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that:

‘If regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the purpose of any determination

to be made under the planning acts, the determination must be made in accordance

with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.’

3.2 The first test, and the statutory starting point is whether the application is ‘in accordance

with the plan’, which is a phrase that has been the subject of debate in the High Court in

the context of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In his judgment

of 31 July 2000 (R v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Milne), Mr Justice

Sullivan (as he then was) concluded as follows:

‘…I regard as untenable the proposition that if there is a breach of any one Policy in a

development plan a proposed development cannot be said to be “in accordance with

the plan”…’

‘For the purposes of Section 54A, it is enough that the proposal accords with the

development plan considered as a whole. It does not have to accord with each and

every policy therein.’

3.3 This Rochdale judgment is applicable to the interpretation of Section 38 (6) of the 2004

Act and the Council must reach a decision, therefore, as to whether the application is in

accordance with the development plan, when it is considered as a whole.

The Development Plan for Tameside

3.4 The development plan for Tameside comprises the saved Policies of the Tameside Unitary

Development Plan, adopted in 2004 (the UDP). We note that the application site is

unannotated on the Tameside UDP Proposals Map, so that specific land use policies are

absent. In this Statement, we address the UDP’s relevant retail and housing policies,


HV110 | March 2017 15

whereas the Design and Access Statement, prepared by JDA Architects, addresses the

relevant design and access policies.

The Tameside Unitary Development Plan

Part One Policies

3.5 Following the Secretary of State’s saving direction of 18 September 2007, the retail and

housing policies within Part One of the Tameside UDP, which are of most relevance to the

application being considered, are Policies 1.4, 1.6, 1.7 and 1.9.

3.6 Policy 1.4 states that sufficient land will be made available for housing development and

that the Council will undertake annual monitoring. Indeed, the Policy recognises that ‘A

wide variety of types of housing will be required, to meet the needs of the whole

community and to encourage further investment’.

3.7 Policy 1.6 sets out a number of initiatives which will secure the regeneration of the

Borough’s urban areas, some of which include: the redevelopment of brownfield sites;

bringing forward development in under-used and unsightly areas; and strengthening the

role of town centres. Policy 1.6 then advises that in stimulating urban regeneration

‘…priority will be given to the reuse of previously developed land and buildings’.

3.8 Policy 1.7 seeks to ensure that Ashton-under-Lyne and other town centres in the Borough

are the focal points for retailing and other town centre uses, and to ensure that they are

protected and enhanced.

3.9 Policy 1.9 seeks to ‘…retain and increase the availability of local employment, shopping,

leisure and community facilities throughout the Borough’ so as ‘…to reduce the need to

travel longer distances from outlying areas and to help create vitality and diversity in

predominantly residential areas’. The policy then makes specific reference to mixed uses,

and states that they will be developed so long as they do not cause environmental or

traffic problems or conflict with the role of town centres.

3.10 Indeed, the ‘Reasoned Justification for Part 1 Policies’ section of the UDP states, with

respect to Policy 1.9, that ‘Local shops are gradually being lost in parts of the Borough’


HV110 | March 2017 16

and that support should be given to ‘...opportunities which may arise to increase the

availability of local shopping in various forms, not restricted to existing centres alone’.

3.11 These Part One policies are both strategic and aspirational in nature, but they do not

contain any development management criteria. Nevertheless, the application proposal

will assist in meeting the objectives of these policies by:

providing additional housing so as to make a positive contribution, albeit small, to the

apparent undersupply in housing land;

providing an alternative housing type to the existing stock in the immediate area

thereby improving choice and affordability so as to meet local needs;

redeveloping an underutilised brownfield site;

helping to encourage further investment in the area by replacing a vacant and

derelict building with a modern mixed use development;

providing 20 new apartments in close proximity to Droylsden District Centre so as to

support its role and function;

providing a mixed use proposal in a highly accessible and sustainable location;

providing employment opportunities both during the construction phase and during

the operational phase of the retail unit; and by

improving the range and choice of local convenience within this area of Droylsden.

Part Two Policies - Housing and Community Facilities

3.12 Following the Secretary of State’s saving direction, of 18 September 2007, the housing

policies of most relevance to the application being considered are Policies H2, H4 and H7.

However, if the apparent absence of a five year housing supply is confirmed, these

policies would not be up-to-date, and so would have to be given limited weight.

3.13 Policy H2 relates to unallocated sites, and particularly to brownfield sites such as the

application site; it states that ‘Unless other considerations take precedence in a particular

case, the Council will permit the redevelopment of previously developed land for


HV110 | March 2017 17

residential use and the conversion of existing buildings to such use, where these are not

specifically allocated for this purpose in the plan’.

3.14 The supporting text to Policy H2 explains that this policy is ‘…intended to facilitate the

approval of brownfield windfall (unallocated) sites for housing development through the

plan period’ and acknowledges that ‘Windfalls have made a substantial contribution to

overall housing supply in the Borough during recent years, helping to regenerate the

urban area and reduce pressure on greenfield sites’. The supporting text also confirms

that Policy H2 ‘…provides a general presumption in favour of brownfield windfalls’, which

is further strengthened by the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ that is

afforded to this particular application proposal, under the provisions of Paragraphs 14

and 49 of the NPPF.

3.15 It is also important to note that the development will deliver 20 additional residential

units in a sustainable location that had not been identified in the Tameside SHLAA 2014

(as illustrated in Appendix 3). Thus, the application proposal will make a valuable

contribution, albeit small, towards offsetting the apparent current undersupply of

housing land within Tameside. Indeed, we consider that this aspect of the proposal

should be afforded significant weight in the decision making process.

3.16 Policy H4 relates to the type, size and affordability of dwellings in Tameside; it states that

‘The overall provision of new housing in the Borough should incorporate a range of

dwelling types, sizes and affordability…’. As such, the Council will require developers to

‘provide an element of subsidised or low cost market housing on suitable residential sites

of 25 or more dwellings, or 1 hectare or more in size’. The policy then goes on to specify

various aspects that will be considered ‘…when assessing the suitability of residential sites

for the provision of affordable housing in areas of need’. However, the affordability aspect

of Policy H4 does not apply to the application proposal because the site measures less

than 1 hectare and the application involves only 20 apartments.

3.17 So far as the ‘…range of dwelling types, sizes and affordability’ aspect of Policy H4 is

concerned, this proposal has had regard to the recent Draft Greater Manchester Spatial

Framework (the Draft GMSF) consultation document, dated October 2016. We note that

Policy GM5 of the Draft GMSF identifies a housing requirement for Tameside of 13,600


HV110 | March 2017 18

additional homes over the GMSF plan period. The annual average requirement is 682

units and the broad breakdown of dwellings to apartments is 80 per cent housing and 20

per cent apartments. Thus, if adopted, this policy would require Tameside Council to

deliver approximately 136 new apartments per year.

3.18 The supporting text of Policy GM5 advises that ‘Almost half of all household growth [in

the GMSF area] is forecast to be in the form of single person households, which in part will

drive the continued growth in demand for apartments’. Therefore, it is clear that there is a

specific need within the Greater Manchester Combined Authority area for apartments

that cater for smaller households, particularly single person households. In light of this, it

is considered that the application proposal will comply with the intentions of Policy H4.

Indeed, when compared with the existing housing stock in the surrounding area, the

application proposal will provide for alternative dwelling types that include an

appropriate mix of one and two bedroom units so as to widen the range in affordability.

3.19 It is also important to note that the Speakers Panel report, for the previously refused

scheme (Ref: 14/00861/FUL), confirms that ‘There are already a variety of house types

and sizes in the local area and it is considered that the redevelopment of the site will add

to this mix of house types and sizes to benefit the community’.

3.20 Policy H7 of the Tameside UDP relates to mixed use proposals, and it confirms that ‘the

Council will encourage and permit the development of:

(a) schemes which contain mixed uses incorporating housing, either on parts of a site

or within individual buildings, such as flats above commercial uses, and

(b) schemes which make efficient use of land through housing densities of between 30

and 50 dwellings per hectare net, or greater in locations highly accessible by public

transport, and

(c) schemes which include limited provision of off-street car parking taking account of

the needs of the potential occupiers and the availability of alternative means of

transport’.

3.21 The policy then advises that such schemes will be appropriate throughout the Borough

but that they are ‘….particularly encouraged within or adjoining town centres, in the


HV110 | March 2017 19

vicinity of rail or Metrolink stations, and within high quality / high frequency bus corridors.

This will be subject in all cases to creating or maintaining high quality residential

environments in line with policy H10’.

3.22 The proposed mixed use development will accord with Policy H7 in that it will incorporate

apartments above a ground floor retail unit and deliver a high density development in a

highly accessible location noting the proximity of the site to two Metrolink stops,

approximately 200m to the west and 700m to the east, as well as bus stops (20m

eastbound and 70m westbound) that provide frequent services to numerous locations,

such as Manchester, Stockport, Ashton-under-Lyne and Stalybridge.

3.23 The Design and Access Statement, prepared by JDA Architects, also demonstrates that

the proposal will create a ‘high quality residential environment’, in line with Policy H10 of

the UDP, and the Residential Design SPD.

3.24 Furthermore, we note also that the proposal will provide one car parking space per

apartment so that it will comply with the supporting text of Policy H7 which urges

proposals in accessible locations to provide less than 1.5 car parking spaces per dwelling.

This will help to ensure that developments reflect the Government’s emphasis on

securing sustainable residential environments.

Part Two Policies - Town Centres, Retailing and Leisure

3.25 Following the Secretary of State’s saving direction of 18 September 2007, the retail

policies of most relevance to the application being considered are Policies S1 and S6.

Policy S1 is aspirational in seeking to ‘…identify and implement improvement and

investment schemes’ in the Borough’s hierarchy of centres, including Droylsden, which is

identified as a ‘district centre’. This policy is consistent with the objectives set out in

Paragraph 23 of the NPPF, which seek to ensure the vitality of town centres.

3.26 However, the development management policy of most relevance is Policy S6, which

states that ‘The Council will permit the development of additional neighbourhood

foodstores, local shops and other small scale retail outlets serving local needs where

suitable sites or buildings are available, so long as these:


HV110 | March 2017 20

(a) will not adversely affect the vitality and viability of established district or local

centres; and

(b) will not lead to a loss of amenity in surrounding residential areas; and

(c) will not result in traffic problems on adjacent highways.

3.27 The supporting text to Policy S6 goes on to state that ‘This policy is concerned with retail

development outside the Borough's town centres, but which is of a smaller scale than that

covered by policy S3 (less than 1,400 sq metres gross floorspace) and caters for local

needs’. The supporting text of Policy S6 also accepts that ‘The gradual decline in small

local shops which has been evident over a number of years can reduce the facilities

available to people who rely upon or wish to walk in or use public transport for day to day

requirements’. Thus, the policy seeks to ‘…take advantage of whatever opportunities may

arise for improving local shopping provision, so long as this would not weaken existing

local centres or cause amenity or traffic problems’.

3.28 However, we consider that Policy S6 is not fully consistent with the development

management tests set out in the NPPF. This is because criterion a) refers to ‘adverse’

impacts as opposed to ‘significantly adverse’ impacts, as per Paragraph 27 of the NPPF.

Thus, we consider that more weight should be given to the impact tests set out in

Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the NPPF, as discussed in Section 5.

3.29 Nevertheless, for the reasons set out in Section 5, we consider that there is no

fundamental conflict with Policy S6. Indeed, we would emphasise that the convenience

store has been carefully designed to comply with the general intentions of Policy S6. It

will not materially affect the vitality and viability of existing centres; nor will it lead to a

loss of amenity in residential areas (as confirmed in JDA’s supporting Design and Access

Statement); nor will it result in the creation of traffic problems on adjacent highways, as

confirmed in the supporting Transport Statement.

3.30 Furthermore, the convenience store, which will operate as a Spar, will serve the local

shopping needs of the future residents of the proposal, as well as those in close proximity

to the application site, particularly the elderly residents of Tatton Mere Drive, Redesmere

Close and Baguley Street. In short, we consider that the proposed store will help to


HV110 | March 2017 21

improve the overall sustainability of the application proposal, and improve the range and

choice of local convenience goods provision within the local area.

The Emerging LDF

3.31 Paragraph 216 of the NPPF states that decision takers may give weight to relevant

policies in emerging plans, from the date of publication, according to:

a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan;

b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and

c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies with the NPPF.

3.32 In January 2013, Tameside Council published, for consultation, its Joint Core Strategy and

Development Management Policies DPD (Preferred Options). However, the Council then

became involved in the preparation of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, so

that the Core Strategy did not progress beyond this stage. Instead, the Council is now

consulting on the broad scope of a new Local Plan, from Monday 23rd January 2017 to

Monday 6 March 2017. Thus, the emerging Local Plan is not sufficiently advanced for it to

be of any assistance in determining the current application proposal.

Conclusion in Relation to the Development Plan

3.33 Indeed, the application proposal meets the strategic and aspirational objectives of

Policies 1.4, 1.6, 1.7 and 1.9, as contained in Part One Polices of the UDP, and it also

complies with the various requirements of Policies H2, H4, H7, S1 and S6, as contained in

Part Two Policies of the UDP. Thus, the application proposal accords with the

development plan, when considered as a whole, as per Section 38(6) of the Planning and

Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. We consider, therefore, that the application proposal

should be approved without delay.


HV110 | March 2017 22

4 THE SEQUENTIAL TEST

Requirements of the NPPF

4.1 Paragraph 24 of the NPPF sets out the sequential test that applies to planning

applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in

accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. Paragraph 24 states that ‘…applications for

main town centres uses should be located in town centres, then in edge-of-centre

locations, and only if suitable sites are not available should out-of-centre sites be

considered.’ In considering out-of-centre proposals, Para. 24 states that ‘…preference

should be given to accessible sites that are well-connected to the town centre’.

4.2 In applying the sequential approach, Paragraph 24 requires applicants and local planning

authorities to demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale. However, in

contrast to the provisions of Policy EC 15.1d of the former PPS4, Paragraph 24 makes no

specific mention of the words ‘car parking’ and ‘disaggregation’ in applying the flexibility

component of the test. As a consequence, any site in a sequentially preferable location

must be suitable for accommodating all elements of the application proposal.

4.3 Indeed, we note that the Inspector for the Vulcan Road appeal in Sheffield (ref:

APP/J4423/A/13/2189893) stated, in Paragraph 34 of his decision of 3rd July 2013, that

‘…the absence of any reference to other elements of flexibility such as car parking

provision and disaggregation… is both telling and intentional’. Furthermore, in his

decision of 11th June 2014, in respect of a major mixed-use development proposal at

Rushden Lakes (ref: APP/G2815/V/12/2190175), the Secretary of State confirms, in

Paragraph 16 of his decision letter, that ‘…there is no requirement to disaggregate’.

4.4 Another important difference compared to Policy EC15.1 of the former PPS4 is the fact

that Paragraph 24 of the NPPF makes no specific reference to the issue of viability in

assessing the suitability of sites. Nevertheless, we consider that viability is an important

aspect of the suitability component of the sequential test and we note that Paragraph 23

of the NPPF, which deals with local plan preparation, does include a viability requirement

in stating that local planning authorities should ‘allocate appropriate edge of centre

sites…where suitable and viable town centre sites are not available’ (our emphasis).


HV110 | March 2017 23

4.5 Indeed, it would be odd if viability was not to be a relevant requirement in development

management, when delivery is such a key part of the NPPF; for example, Paragraph 173

requires ‘…careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision-taking.

Plans should be deliverable (our emphasis)’.

4.6 Moreover, we would emphasise that helpful clarification on this matter has been

provided by the Inspector’s report in respect of the aforementioned Rushden call-in

Inquiry, in which he concludes that ‘…the task is to identify sequentially preferable sites

that are suitable and available which necessarily includes consideration of

deliverability/viability’ (IR Paragraph 8.54, our emphasis); and we note that the Secretary

of State’s decision letter does not contest this conclusion.

4.7 The final aspect of the Inspector’s report in Rushden that we wish to emphasise relates to

the issue of availability. In paragraph 8.55 of his report to the Secretary of State, the

Inspector argues that the NPPF requires that the site is ‘currently available’, thereby,

rejecting the approach taken in the now superseded Planning for Town Centres Practice

Guidance, which referred to availability ‘… within a reasonable period of time… having

regard to … the urgency of the need’.

National Planning Policy Guidance (the NPPG)

4.8 Paragraph ID: 2b-010 of the National Planning Policy Guidance (the NPPG) provides

further advice on how the sequential test should be used in decision taking. It confirms

that it is for the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the sequential test, with

support from the local planning authority, which has a duty to share any relevant

information. The NPPG confirms that there is a requirement to demonstrate flexibility,

with respect to format and scale, in assessing the suitability of more central sites.

4.9 Paragraph ID: 2b-011 states that ‘…use of the sequential test should recognise that certain

main town centre uses have particular market and locational requirements which mean

that they may only be accommodated in specific locations’. The Guidance states,

however, that there must be a robust justification if a location-specific requirement is

being advanced, and that land ownership does not provide such a justification.


HV110 | March 2017 24

4.10 Finally, we note that Paragraph ID: 2b-012 requires local planning authorities to recognise

that town centre locations can be more expensive and complicated than building elsewhere,

so that they should be ‘…realistic and flexible in terms of their expectations’.

The Supreme Court Judgment in Dundee

4.11 At this point in our Statement, it is also relevant to note the findings of the Supreme

Court Judgment in respect of Tesco Stores Limited (the appellant) v Dundee City Council

(the respondent) which was issued on 21st March 2012. The judgment provides a ruling

on the interpretation of the ‘suitability’ component of the sequential test. In this case,

the Court had to decide whether the word ‘suitable’ means ‘suitable for the development

proposed by the applicant’, or ‘suitable for meeting identified deficiencies in retail

provision in the area’. Subject to the requirement for the applicant to demonstrate

flexibility, the Court endorsed the former and rejected the latter.

4.12 In Paragraph 28 of the Judgment, Lord Reed confirms that ‘suitable’ means ‘suitable for

the development proposed by the applicant’, but he adds the qualification that there is a

need for ‘…flexibility and realism from developers and retailers as well as planning

authorities’. In Paragraph 29, he adds that provided the applicant has shown flexibility…

the question that remains is ‘…whether an alternative site is suitable for the proposed

development, not whether the proposed development can be altered or reduced so that it

can be made to fit an alternative site’.

4.13 Finally, we draw attention to Paragraph 38 of the Dundee Judgment in which Lord Hope

confirms that ‘…the whole [sequential] exercise is directed to what the developer is

proposing, not some other proposal which the planning authority might seek to substitute

for it which is for something less than that sought by the developer’. He goes on to state

that ‘…developments of this kind are generated by the developer’s assessment of the

market that he seeks to serve…’ and that the sequential criteria ‘…are designed for use in

the real world, in which developers wish to operate, not some artificial world in which

they have no interest doing so’. The Inspector for the Rushden call-in inquiry describes the

Dundee Judgment as being of ‘seminal importance’ (IR 8.44) and that it establishes ‘…that

if a site is not suitable for the commercial requirements of the developer in question then

it is not a suitable site for the purposes of the sequential approach’ (IR 8.45).


HV110 | March 2017 25

Area of Search

4.14 The proposed convenience store measures 300 sq. m GIA and will operate as a Spar. As

such, it will only be of local neighbourhood significance and it has been designed to serve

the local shopping needs of the future residents of the proposed apartments, as well as

those residents in close proximity to the application site.

4.15 Thus, given the site’s urban location, we consider that the proposed store’s catchment

will equate to a five minute walking distance (i.e. a radius of around 400m). As a

consequence, our sequential search has focused on: Droylsden District Centre, which lies

137m to the west of the application site; a small local parade, which lies 390m to the

east; and, for completeness, Audenshaw Local Parade, although this is located

approximately 790m to the east of the application site and, as such, lies outside the

proposed store’s likely catchment area. Appendix 1 of this Statement shows the location

of the District Centre and the two Local Parades, and Appendices 4, 5 and 6 provide

annotated plans showing the representation in each of the three centres of convenience

retailers, comparison retailers, service traders and vacant units.

4.16 In applying an appropriate degree of flexibility required by Paragraph 24 of the NPPF, we

focused our assessment on the suitability and availability of premises in the range 150 sq.

m to 450 sq. m GIA, with the application store being at the mid-point of this range, at 300

sq. m gross. Any sites or premises outside this range would require too great a degree of

flexibility, on the part of the applicant. Nevertheless, we have also investigated the

potential for sub-division of larger vacant premises.

Droylsden District Centre

4.17 Having surveyed all of the sites and premises within and on the edge of Droylsden District

Centre’s Primary Shopping Area, we found just four vacant premises and one site that

warranted further investigation, these being:

No. 4 Greenside Retail Park, Droylsden

4.18 These premises (Photo 3) comprise a vacant unit of 600 sq. m, located within the

predominantly comparison goods focused Greenside Retail Park. The unit is located

approximately 100m outside of the Primary Shopping Area, as recommended by WYG’s


HV110 | March 2017 26

Tameside Retail Study 2010, but it is within the overall District Centre boundary shown on

the UDP Proposals Map.

4.19 At the time of our site visit, the unit was being marketed and can be considered available.

However, whilst a sub-division of these premises may, theoretically, accommodate a retail

store of the size included in the application proposal, the premises are not being marketed

on this basis, so that such an opportunity is not, in the words of the Rushden Inspector,

‘currently available’. Nor would it be viable for our client to seek to acquire and sub-divide

the premises. Therefore, this vacant unit is not considered to be either suitable or viable for

accommodating the convenience store proposed in the application.

Photo 3: View of Unit 4 Greenside Retail Park, Droylsden

4.20 Furthermore, Image 2, which shows the 400m radius from the centre point of the

application site (i.e. the red dot), confirms that Unit 4 is located just outside the main

catchment area of the proposed convenience store; indeed, in walking terms, Unit 4 is

approximately seven minutes from the application site.


HV110 | March 2017 27

Image 2: Shows a 400m radius catchment from the application site (Source: www.populationexplorer.com)

No. 21 to 23 Queens Walk, Droylsden

4.21 These premises represent a 240 sq. m vacant unit, in an unattractive location, under the

Droylsden Arcade, as shown in Photo 4.

Photo 4: View of Unit No. 21 to 23 Queens Walk, Droylsden

http://www.populationexplorer.com/


HV110 | March 2017 28

4.22 This unit is assumed to be available, but there was no marketing signage evident on its

frontage at the time of our visit. The premises are too small to accommodate the 300

sq.m GIA store proposed at the application site, and are located at the periphery of the

application store’s catchment area, so that they are not suitable. Moreover, it would be

unviable for our client to seek to disaggregate the retail store from the residential

component of the application proposal, and the Secretary of State made it clear, in his

Rushden decision, that disaggregation is no longer required. Therefore, this unit is not

suitable or viable for accommodating the application proposal.

No. 97 Market Street, Droylsden

4.23 These premises comprise a vacant unit of 460 sq. m, which were previously occupied by a

discount comparison goods store (see Photo 5).

Photo 5: View of Unit No. 97 Market Street, Droylsden (taken from Market Street)

4.24 The size of this unit is outside the 150 sq. m to 450 sq. m range that we have considered to

be potentially suitable, even having applied the appropriate degree of flexibility. The

premises are therefore unsuitable for our client’s store, both in terms of size and the lack of

availability of dedicated parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of the store. We consider,

therefore, that the premises are more suited to a comparison goods retailer, given the

prominent dual frontage from both Market Street and Manchester Road.


HV110 | March 2017 29

Greater Manchester Pension Fund Building – Ground Floor Retail and Leisure

4.25 These premises represent the vacant ground floor of a recent four storey mixed-use

development (under planning permission ref: 13/00590/FUL), now known as Guardsman

Tony Downes House, and located along the southern side of Manchester Road (A662).

We understand that the redevelopment was financed by the Greater Manchester Pension

Fund (the GMPF), and that GMPF now occupies the upper floors as its office

headquarters. We further understand that the ground floor area measures approximately

663 sq. m gross and that this floorspace has permission for both retail and leisure uses.

Photo 6: View of approved retail and leisure uses area at the ground floor of GMPF’s headquarters

4.26 However, during our site visit, it was not apparent that the retail and leisure component

of the building was being marketed. Indeed, Photo 6 shows that the frontage to

Manchester Road is defined by solid wall-like structures, with place marketing signs for

Droylsden attached onto them. It would appear, therefore, that the premises are not, in

the words of the Rushden Inspector, ‘currently available’, and we anticipate that the

ground floor is likely to be sub-divided to suit the bespoke needs of retail and service

users. As a consequence, this is not a suitable opportunity for a convenience store

designed to meet the needs of its immediate neighbourhood.

Approved Masterplan Reserved Matters Consent under Ref: 06/00226/REM

4.27 Image 3 shows an area of land (in dark orange) along the eastern side of Market Street

that formed part of a larger mixed-use site, for which a Reserved Matters planning

permission was granted in 2006, under ref: 06/00226/REM. However, it appears that this


HV110 | March 2017 30

part of the wider site has not been progressed, and it is currently being used for car

parking purposes. As a consequence, there is no ‘currently available’ opportunity for a

convenience foodstore on this site. Nor would this location be suitable to meet the needs

of the residents in the immediate vicinity of the Moss Tavern site.

Image 3: Shows an extract from the Droylsden Wharf master plan approved under 06/00226/REM

Small Local Parade to the East of the Application Site

4.28 There is a small local parade that lies 390m to the east of the application site and, as

such, is located right at the edge of the likely catchment area for the proposed

convenience store (see Image 2 above). The local parade contains three retail and three

service units, none of which are vacant. The One Stop convenience store (Photo 7) is the

only unit of a potentially suitable size (260 sq. m gross) within this small local parade, but

this unit is currently occupied, and One Stop appears to be busy and successful. Indeed,

during our site visit, we observed that customers of the adjacent bakery were linking trips

with the One Stop, and vice versa, so that both uses were serving a complimentary role.

We also noted that the One Stop provides for a diverse range of goods. Therefore, we

would not expect this store to be available to a rival retailer.


HV110 | March 2017 31

Photo 7: The One Stop, as viewed from Droylsden Road

Audenshaw Local Parade

4.29 This local parade is located approximately 790m to the east of the application site, and

contains 16 small retail and service units, four of which are vacant, as shown in Appendix

6. However, despite being located outside the application store’s likely five minute

walking catchment area, we have surveyed it for sequentially preferable sites, because of

press reports of vacancy. However, having surveyed the centre, we found that each of the

four vacant units is smaller than 100 sq. m, so that none are considered suitable or viable

for the application store.

Conclusion in Relation to the Sequential Approach

4.30 Having surveyed all of the existing units and sites within and on the edge of Droylsden

District Centre and the two local parades to the east of the application site, we have been

unable to find any opportunities in sequentially preferable locations that are available,

suitable and viable for the convenience store component of the application proposal. We

conclude, therefore, that the application proposal passes the sequential test, as set out in

Paragraph 24 of the NPPF. Moreover, the application site is in a highly accessible location

that is ideally placed to meet the needs of those who reside in the immediate vicinity of

the Moss Tavern application site.


HV110 | March 2017 32

5 RETAIL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS

Introduction

5.1 The retail component of this residential-led mixed use proposal will have a gross internal

area of approximately 300 sq. m, which is considerably below the 2,500 sq. m threshold

for the impact tests set out in Paragraph 26 of the NPPF. Moreover, the gross internal

area of the store is well below the 1,400 sq. m threshold set out in the explanatory

wording to Policy S3 of the Tameside UDP. There is, therefore, no requirement for us to

formally apply the NPPF impact tests to the application proposal.

5.2 Nevertheless, in order to be helpful to Officers, we seek to provide reassurance that there

will be no material impacts on investment, or on trading levels within Droylsden District

Centre. Similarly, we seek to demonstrate that there will be no material harm to the

nearest local parades, which, in any event, are outside the definition of ‘Town Centre’ in

Annex 2 of the NPPF, i.e. they are parades of purely neighbourhood significance, but they

are not Local Centres, so that they do not enjoy policy protection under the NPPF.

Droylsden District Centre

5.3 Our client’s investment in the derelict Moss Tavern application site will make a positive

contribution towards investor confidence generally in this area, and will have no impact

on recent investment in Droylsden Town Centre, such as the investment in the Wharf, or

the investment in Guardsman Tony Downes House. Moreover, the residents of the new

apartments will bring new earnings into the area that will benefit the restaurants and

other comparison and service traders located in Droylsden District Centre.

5.4 Thus, whilst Droylsden District Centre has a vacancy rate that is higher than the national

average, we anticipate that the effects, over time, of the new residents in the Wharf and

the new employees in Guardsman Tony Downes House, will bring added vitality to the

District Centre and help to reduce vacancies. Indeed, we note that vacancies have already

dropped from 26 units at the time of the Goad survey of October 2015, to 21 units at the

time of our own survey earlier this year.


HV110 | March 2017 33

5.5 We should also emphasise that our client’s convenience foodstore will have no

discernible impact on the existing Tesco and Iceland stores. Indeed, the Tesco store was

reported to be substantially over-trading at the time of WYG’s Tameside Retail Study of

2010. Nor will there be any material impact on the independent convenience goods

traders in Droylsden.

Small Local Parade to the East of the Application Site

5.6 The small parade of shops to the east of the application site contains One Stop and an

independent baker, which appear to be are mutually supportive operators. However, to

allay any concerns with respect to any potential trading impact on One Stop, we have

undertaken an analysis of the resident population within a 400m radius of the application

site (approximately five minutes walking distance). Our analysis shows that there are

approximately 7,136 people resident within a 400m radius of the application site, as

confirmed by www.populationexplorer.com in Image 4 below.

Image 4: Shows the population within a 400m radius of the application site (Source: www.populationexplorer.com)

5.7 Projecting forward from WYG’s Retail Study, on the basis of Experian’s Retail Planner

Briefing Note 13, we estimate that the current level of convenience spending for




HV110 | March 2017 34

residents in the Droylsden area is £2,567 per capita, per annum. Thus, residents of the

catchment area have a total of approximately £18.3m to spend each year on convenience

shopping (7,136 population x £2,567).

5.8 In contrast, we estimate that the convenience turnover of the application foodstore,

which would trade as a Spar, will amount to only £1.6m, based on Mintel’s sales density

for Spar stores of £6,928 per sq. m, applied to a total sales area of 226 sq. m. This equates

to only ten per cent of the convenience goods expenditure pot of residents in the

application store’s catchment area, and this expenditure pot will grow as a result of the

spending of the residents in the proposed flats. There is, therefore, no basis for any

concern in relation to impact on other retailers.

5.9 Indeed, we note that the existing One Stop unit is located right at the edge of the

application store’s likely catchment area, and that the One Stop benefits from existing

residents to the north, south and east that are located outside the 400m radius from the

application site, as shown in red in Image 5 below. The likely overlap in catchments is

therefore likely to be limited to the small area shaded in green, where residents will have

a choice of two stores, in line with the Government’s desire to promote consumer choice.

Image 5: Shows the likely catchment area of the proposed convenience store, the location of the existing One Stop, relative to this catchment area, and the residential areas that the One Stop will continue to capture trade from (Source: www.populationexplorer.com)



HV110 | March 2017 35

Audenshaw Local Parade

5.10 Audenshaw local parade contains 16 small retail and service units that are located on

both sides of Droylsden Road and on both sides of the Metrolink line. Four of these units

are vacant, but they are all small, and each measures less than 100 sq. m. Moreover,

having visited the parade, it is clear that the only store that might possibly lose some

trade is the Snipe Convenience store, but this store is only 67 sq. m in size and sells a

limited range of goods when compared with the One Stop located closer to the

application site. As a consequence, any loss of trade will be negligible. Moreover, at the

time of our visit, the Snipe store appeared to be trading relatively well, and it clearly

benefits from its proximity to a large residential walk-in catchment, and has the

additional benefit of parking spaces outside the store, adjoining the Wheelchair Centre.

Conclusion in Relation to Retail Impacts

5.11 The convenience foodstore component of the application will have no material adverse

impact on investment, or trading levels, in Droylsden District Centre and will not cause

any material harm to the nearby parades.


HV110 | March 2017 36

6 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Localised Need

6.1 JDA’s public consultation, and its liaison with Council’s officers, has made it clear that

there is a localised need for the proposed convenience store, particularly on the part of

the elderly residents of Tatton Mere Drive, Redesmere Close and Baguley Street, some of

whom have mobility difficulties and struggle to walk to the One Stop, which is located

approximately 390m further east of the application site.

Site Specific Regeneration Benefits

6.2 The vacant and derelict Moss Tavern building is an eye sore at this prominent location,

which is currently sending a negative message to those who drive along the

Ashton/Droylsden Road, and to the many passengers aboard the Metrolink that pass the

site regularly. Thus, this proposal will ensure that this eye sore is removed and replaced

by a modern mixed use development, which will send a positive message to those who

pass the site. We would anticipate that this positive message will help to improve

confidence in the area, generally, and hopefully encourage further investment in and

around Droylsden.

Improving Surveillance and Reducing Antisocial Behaviour

6.3 During the public consultation event, which was held in the Parish Church of Saint Mary’s

Droylsden, on the 12th October 2016, local residents expressed concerns about the

application site and its current vacant and derelict state. Indeed, elderly residents

referred to recurring incidents of anti-social behaviour and vandalism, and they also

complained about the levels of noise being created during these incidents.

6.4 Thus, it is important to note that the proposed development will not only remove this

problem for surrounding residents, but it will also improve the sense of security and the

levels of surveillance within the area, noting the private open space balconies that are

proposed for each of the 20 new apartments.


HV110 | March 2017 37

Support for Droylsden District Centre

6.5 The main residential component of the proposed mixed use development will provide 20

additional apartments in close proximity to Droylsden District Centre. As such, these

additional households will make a positive contribution to the retail and leisure

expenditure undertaken in the District Centre, and thus help to support the existing

businesses within the District Centre. Thus, this extra patronage, combined with the

patronage of the employees of the GMPF headquarters building and the new residents of

the Wharf scheme, will help to support the role and function of the District Centre.

Indeed, these recent investments will help to encourage further investment in the area,

and we would expect an eventual reduction in the high number of vacancies currently

within the District Centre.

Improved Range and Choice of Goods

6.6 The proposed convenience store, whilst being only of local neighbourhood significance,

will, nevertheless, help to improve the range and choice of goods for the local residents.

Employment Creation

6.7 The application proposal will provide for employment creation, both during the

construction stage and during the operational stage of the convenience store.

Permitted Development Rights

6.8 Class A of Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)

(England) Order 2015 (the GPDO) permits a change of use from Use Class A4 (drinking

establishments) to Use Class A1 (shops), or to Use Class A2 (financial and professional

services), or to Use Class A3 (restaurants and cafes), provided that the local planning

authority has not designated, or nominated to designate, the public house premises as an

‘asset of community value’ (ACV), and we are not aware of any such designations. It is

arguable, therefore, that the principle of retail use has already been established, although

we acknowledge that the premises would not be suitable for our client’s convenience

store, and that any such change of use is likely to require further planning permission for

elevational changes and so on.


HV110 | March 2017 38

7 CONCLUSIONS

Overall Conclusions

7.1 This Retail and Housing Planning Policies Statement has sought to establish that the

benefits deriving from this application proposal for a residential-led, mixed use

development substantially outweigh any negatives. Indeed, we emphasise the following:

Site Specific and Regeneration Benefits

the application site, in its current vacant and derelict state, seriously detracts from

the visual appearance of the area, so that it is in urgent need of redevelopment;

indeed, the Speakers Panel Report, of 13th February 2015 (final paragraph), in respect

of the previously refused application, and the subsequent report from the appeal

Inspector (Paragraph 20), both accept that the application site is in a sustainable

location, and that the redevelopment of the site is welcomed;

the application site has become a focus for vandalism and anti-social behaviour, and

the associated noise impacts are said to be causing a nuisance for local residents,

particularly the elderly;

moreover, the design of the current proposal, represents a considerable

improvement compared with the previously refused scheme (Ref: 14/00861/FUL),

with reductions having been made to the overall height, scale, mass and bulk;

Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

the two recent appeals suggest that Tameside Council does not currently have a five

year housing land supply, so that if this is confirmed still to be the case, the relevant

housing policies could not be considered ‘up-to-date’, as per the provisions of

Paragraph 49 of the NPPF, so that less weight should be given to the housing policies

set out in the UDP, the most relevant of which are (H2, H4 and H7); the application

proposal will therefore make a valuable, albeit small, contribution towards offsetting

the current under-supply of housing land within Tameside;


HV110 | March 2017 39

similarly, retail policy S6 is not fully consistent with the development management

tests set out in Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the NPPF, so it too is ‘out-of-date’;

as a consequence, the application proposal benefits from a presumption in favour of

sustainable development set out in Paragraph 14 of the NPPF;

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

despite the relevant UDP policies not being fully up-to-date, we consider that the

application accords with the development plan, considered as whole, so that Section

38(6) requires an approval, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise;

National Retail Policy Considerations

the convenience store will operate as a Spar and it has been designed to serve local

shopping needs, so that it will be of neighbourhood significance only and it will help

to improve the range and choice of goods for residents in this area;

the application site is located approximately 233m from Droylsden District Centre’s

Primary Shopping Area, as recommended by WYG’s Tameside Retail Study 2010 (see

Appendix 2), so that it is in an ‘edge-of-centre’ location for the purposes of Annex 2

of the National Planning Policy Framework;

there are no sites or premises in sequentially preferable locations, within the five

minute walking catchment area of the proposed convenience store that are

‘available’, ‘suitable’ and ‘viable’ for such a store, which cannot and should not be

disaggregated from the residential component of the application, in line with the

Secretary of State’s decision at Rushden Lakes (Ref: APP/G2815/V/12/2190175);

the impact tests set out in Paragraph 26 of the NPPF do not apply to the convenience

store because it is substantially below both the national threshold of 2,500 sq. m, and

also below the 1,400 sq. m local threshold set out in the explanatory wording of

Policy S3 of the Tameside UDP;


HV110 | March 2017 40

nevertheless, our Statement explains that there will be no material harm to existing,

committed and planned investments and no material harm to the vitality and viability

of Droylsden District Centre, or to the nearby local parades;

moreover, there appears to be a qualitative localised need for the convenience store,

particularly among the elderly residents of Tatton Mere Drive, Redesmere Close and

Baguley Street;

Other Material Considerations

the proposal will make a positive contribution towards investor confidence in the

local area, given the application site’s prominent location, and it will also compliment

other recent investment in Droylsden such as the GM Pension Fund’s new

headquarters and the ongoing phased comprehensive redevelopment project, known

as the Wharf;

the main residential component of the application proposal will provide the District

Centre with additional patronage, which will help to support existing retail and

leisure businesses;

the application proposal will provide for employment creation both during the

construction stage of the overall scheme and during the operational stage of the

retail unit; and

Class A of Part 3 of the GPDO (2015) allows for a change of use from Use Class A4

(drinking establishments) to Use Class A1 (shops), or to Use Class A2 (financial and

professional services), or to Use Class A3 (restaurants and cafes). It is arguable,

therefore, that the principle of retail use of the application site has already been

established, although we acknowledge that the premises would not be suitable for

our client’s convenience store, and that any such change of use is likely to require

further planning permission for elevational changes.

7.2 We conclude, therefore, that the application proposal accords with the development

plan, when it is considered as a whole, so that Section 38(6) of the Planning and

Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires an approval, unless material considerations


HV110 | March 2017 41

indicate otherwise, and we can find no such considerations. Furthermore, it is clear that

the application proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable

development and that there are no adverse impacts that would significantly and

demonstrably outweigh the benefits.


HV110 | March 2017

Appendix 1 – Annotated Extract of Tameside’s Interactive UDP Proposals Map –

showing the location of nearby centres and local parades


HV110 | March 2017


HV110 | March 2017

Appendix 2 – WYG’s Recommended Primary Shopping Area for Droylsden District

Centre, as illustrated in Appendix 6 of its Tameside Retail Study 2010


HV110 | March 2017


HV110 | March 2017

Appendix 3 – Extract from Tameside’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

2014 North West Map, which identifies the housing land supply within Tameside

between 2014 and 2029


HV110 | March 2017


HV110 | March 2017

Appendix 4 – Annotated Experian Goad Plan, but with GM Pension Fund Building

Added by HV


HV110 | March 2017


HV110 | March 2017

Appendix 5 – Annotated Promap Plan of the small Local Parade located between the

Application Site and Audenshaw Local Parade


HV110 | March 2017


HV110 | March 2017

Appendix 6 – Annotated Promap Plan of Audenshaw Local Parade


HV110 | March 2017

retail and housing planning policies...

Documents