Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: St James

Councillor Church left the meeting in accordance with his previous declaration of interest.

The Committee adjourned at 19.55 hours until 20.05 so as to allow Members to read the additional information contained in the Addendum relating to this application.

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2009/0843 elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out correspondence from Indigo, the Agents for Sainsbury’s, dated 6 January 2011, a summary thereof and a typographical amendment to paragraph 7.40 of the report. In particular he highlighted the planning history of the application, the assessment of the impact of the proposal vis a vis the Town Centre, the sequential testing of alternative sites; the correspondence from Indigo set out in the Addendum; other retail applications that were in the pipeline to WNDC; and a request from Tesco’s that their proposals for their store at Mereway should be considered together with this one. In this latter respect it was considered  that the Tesco’s Mereway proposals were not sufficiently advanced to merit delaying consideration of the Sainsbury’s proposals yet further as no adverse prejudice would occur.

The Head of Planning summarised the context of the Sainsbury's Sixfields extension including the details of the proposals, the history of application, the relevant planning policy, the negotiations that have taken place and downward revisions of the scheme.  The recommendations that are being made are for a Holding Objection to WNDC on matters of retail impact, carbon impact, the need for control of comparison goods floorspace and the need for securing Sainsbury's town centre presence were laid out for the committee to consider.

Councillor P.M. Varnsverry commented that she supported the revised plans and welcomed the partnership working between Sainsbury’s and the Planning Officers. She noted that St James Residents Association had recently had discussions with Sainsbury’s. She queried whether there would be CCTV coverage to help combat anti social behaviour. She endorsed the recommendations in the report and asked if greater provision for the disabled would be made. Councillor Varnsverry also asked whether Sainsbury’s may be able assist with issues to do with the pedestrian crossing in Tollgate Way just outside of the site.

Christian Wakelin, on behalf of Sainsbury’s commented that the store had opened in 1988, employed 365 staff and had 41,000 customers a week. Sainsbury’s had been part of the Town since 1975 and were committed to a Town Centre presence. This proposal represented an £18m investment and would create an extra 120 jobs. From their own customer research, 95% of people supported the expansion of the Weedon Road store. It needed to be updated to reflect Sainsbury’s modern image and to increase the product ranges on offer. They had worked with WNDC on sustainability and a number of measures were included in their proposal; the proposal would increase energy consumption by 2%. If approved the work would commence in the Summer and the store would remain open during it. In answer to questions Mr Wakelin commented that the full time equivalent jobs were approximately 200 existing and approximately 50 extra; that the design was in keeping with the existing building and that the pallet of materials to be used was more sympathetic than shown in the drawings.

Richard Frudd, Agent for Sainsbury’s, commented that their letter of 6^th January 2011 set out in the Addendum was a response to the publication of the Committee’s agenda. The recommendation in the report was welcome; it was the result of collaborative negotiations. The expanded store would not affect the Town Centre; two independent consultants had agreed that there would be no adverse impact and that it would be unreasonable for the expansion footage to be disaggregated and provided on another site. Sainsbury’s had agreed to keep their non-food offer lower than was now the norm. He believed that the application now passed the PPS 4 tests. The double height atrium was to allow access from the car deck to the store. In answer to questions Mr Frudd commented that Sainsbury’s had considered a replacement store but considered that the Weedon Road Store was important to the west side of the Town, disaggregation had been considered but disregarded as described above; that in terms of comparison goods, white goods were unlikely to be included and he was confident that the trade diversion figures were robust; that the Town Centre Store performed well; and that the plans did take into account further provision for the disabled.                     

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:  That WNDC be informed that although there were no objections raised to the principle of the expansion of the store given its substantially reduced floorspace as now proposed in the revised scheme and the proposals generally accorded with the tests set out in PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Development, the Council raises a HOLDING OBJECTION unless and until:

1.1 WNDC are fully satisfied that such an oversized structure was not unsustainable, that adverse trade diversion from other centres did not occur resulting in a significantly adverse impact on town centre vitality and viability and town centre investment and that the overall bulk of the design and car decking was acceptable in this location.

1.2 WNDC should ensure that sales floorspace was restricted to the levels proposed in the submission and that the comparison goods offer did not exceed 25% of net sales floorspace.  Comparison goods shall be defined as that set out in Appendix A of PPS4.  Failure to secure this limitation through planning conditions or a Section 106 agreement would result in a strong objection from Northampton Borough Council.

1.3 WNDC should emphasise to Sainsbury’s the importance of their presence in the Grosvenor Centre in Northampton town centre and seek methods to maintain their presence in the town.

1.4 WNDC be requested to explore with the County Council as transport authority, the applicant and their agents, the opportunity to divert the No 22 bus service to directly serve the store.