Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings on site. Redevelopment of site to provide a mixed use development comprising a retail foodstore with 6 residential units above, with associated car parking, landscaping and access arrangements.

Description

Demolition of existing buildings on site. Redevelopment of site to provide a mixed use development comprising a retail foodstore with 6 residential units above, with associated car parking, landscaping and access arrangements.

Decision

Planning permission is REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reasons:

(1)          The applicant has failed to provide sufficient information and analysis to demonstrate that the Upper High Street and Depot Road car park areas are not suitable and available for the proposed development, which lie in a sequentially preferable location and are allocated for retail development.  The proposed development is not in accordance with the development plan strategy as it promotes retail floor space outside the town centre.  The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of the Section 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  It is not in accordance with the plan read as a whole which promotes a town centre first approach to retail development in particular on Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy (2007) and Policies E3 and E14 of the Epsom Town Centre Area Action Plan (2011) and DM29 of the DMPD

(2)          The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the level of car parking to be provided at the development is adequate to meet the demand of the proposed store with respect to staff, customers and the loss of on-street parking associated with the construction of the access, to the detriment of on-street parking conditions in the surrounding area.  The development is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy (2007), Policy DM37 of the Development Management Policies (2015) and the overall aims of the Epsom and Ewell Parking Strategy (2012).

(3)          There would be inadequate external amenity space for the occupiers of the residential units.  The units would not provide a quality environment which would adequately meet the needs or protect the living conditions of the occupiers of the site and therefore the development is not sustainable.  As such the proposal does not accord with the requirements of Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy (2007) or Policies DM10 (ix) or DM12 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015).

(4)          In the absence of a completed legal obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) the applicant has failed to comply with the provision of affordable housing.

(5)          The proposed development, in close proximity to the five ways junction, will cause an increase in the volume and nature of traffic generated that would have a severe adverse impact on the safety, convenience and freeflow of traffic using the highway, contrary to Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy 2007.

(6)          The footpath to the east side of Church Road fails to provide a safe, convenient and attractive access for all, contrary to Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy 2007.

(7)          The proposed development fails to provide 25% of three, or more, bedroom units to meet identified housing demand within the borough, and is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy DM22 of the Development Management Policies Document 2015. 

(8)          The bulk, height, mass and design of the proposed development, coupled with the expanse of glazing at ground floor level, fail to respect local distinctiveness and would have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, and the adjacent Pikes Hill Conservation Area.  The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies DM8, DM9, DM10 and DM14 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015) and Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy 2007.

Informative(s):

(1)          The plans considered in the determination of this application are as follows: Drawing Numbers: 0837-CHE-100 Rev B, 0837-CHE-101 Rev B, 0837-CHE-102 Rev A, 0837-CHE-103 Rev A, 0837-CHE-104 Rev A, 837-CHE-105 Rev A, 0837-CHE-106 Rev A, 0837-CHE-107 Rev A, 0837-CHE-108 Rev A, 0837-CHE-109 Rev A, 0837-CHE-110 Rev F, 0837-CHE-111, 0837-CHE-112, 0837-CHE-115 Rev A, 0837-CHE-117, 3787/105/301, 3787/105/303, MJA-P105-4204 and V0837 L01.

(2)          You are advised that the following policies and/or proposals in the development are relevant to this decision:

·               National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) 2012

Paragraph 17       Core Planning principles

Chapter 2              Ensuring the vitality of town centres

·               Core Strategy 2007

Policy CS1                        Creating Sustainable Communities

Policy CS5                        Built Environment

Policy CS14          Epsom Town Centre

Policy CS16          Managing transport and travel

·               Plan E Epsom Town Centre Area Action Plan 2011

Policy E1               Town centre boundary

Policy E3               Town centre retail capacity

Policy E14             Depot Road and Upper High Street

·               Development Management Policies 2015 

Policy DM8           Heritage Assets

DM9                       Townscape Character and Local                                              Distinctiveness

Policy DM10         Design Requirements for New                                                  Developments

DM14                     Shop Front Design

DM22                     Housing Mix

Policy DM29         Major new retail development

Policy DM37         Parking Standards

The Committee noted verbal representations from the applicant’s agent, a supporter of the application and two objectors.  Letters of representation had been published on the Council’s website and were available to the public and members of the Committee in advance of the meeting.

Note: Prior to the meeting, the Committee had been informed of a typographical error in the third reason for refusal. This was incorrect in the Agenda papers in that it referred to Policy DM10 (viii). It should, in fact, have read Policy DM10 (ix).

Note: In the interests of openness and transparency the Chairman, Vice Chairman, Councillors John Beckett, Neil Dallen, Tella Wormington, Jan Mason, Tina Mountain, Clive Smitheram, Mike Teasdale and David Wood indicated that they knew Ms. Julie Morris, being a former councillor, and/or Mr. Andrew Ballard as a member of rotary or Chairman of the Epsom Town Resident’s Association.  Councillor Neil Dallen also indicated that he was acquainted with the representative of the applicant’s agent.