TC5 Providing for Shopping Growth in Royal Leamington Spa Town Centre

Object

Representation ID: 66370

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Ignis UK Property Fund

Agent: WYG Planning and Environment

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Objection is made to the allocation of Chandos Street car park for a major town centre development under Policy TC4 and its identification on the proposals map.
Ignis argue that the site allocated is not suitable to accommodate the required town centre uses because:-
* The Council's retail study identifies capacity requirements for Leamington Town Centre of 5364sqm (2013) rising to 16674sqm net sales by2029.
* TC4 allocates the current car park (0.8ha) which will not be adequate
* TC4 (Para 3.65)states that further land will be required beyond the confines of the allocated car park area therefore this allocation (identified area) is not considered sound and is inappropriate / not consistent with Government policy and its tests of soundness
* The Chandos street car park has fallen within the area of search under the current adopted local plan (policy TCP3). Despite this favourable policy position it has remained undeveloped since the adoption of the current Plan, further calling into question the allocation of this site as an achievable option.
* The Chandos street planning history casts further doubt on the soundness of this allocation. Wilson Bowden's application (W10 0340) was refused for reasons including excessive bulk and mass, impact on the conservation area, loss of traditional buildings and historic street pattern, excessive car parking, lack of measures to promote public transport.
* In order to address the reasons for refusal(many of which were fully endorsed by statutory consultees), it is clear that any revised scheme would have to be physically smaller (less retail floorspace),have lower parking ratios ,have to respect the historic street patterns, include sufficient buffers so as to respect the residential amenity of nearby properties.
In the three years since the refusal the sites promoters have failed to bring forward a replacement scheme, let alone one which addresses the above points. It is considered that this is a significant challenge and may not be achievable. It is suggested that the plan has therefore not been positively prepared and whether the allocation is a an appropriate strategy which is effective, and thus consistent with national policy as required by the tests of soundness.
To conclude the NPPF (para 182) requires the plan to be justified, effective and consistent with national policy. Site allocations in the plan should be demonstrated to be deliverable over the plan period and to be the most appropriate strategy to pursue. Given the problematical site history and the site constraints that limit the size of the development and therefore its ability to meet need it is not considered that this site allocation is sound.