To consider the recommended conditions and Section 106 obligations following the ‘minded to permit’ decision taken at the last Planning Committee meeting.

82.55         Attention was drawn to the report of the Senior Planning Officer, circulated at Pages No.34-88 which set out the progress that had been made since the last meeting where Members had resolved that they would be minded to permit an application for a proposed garden centre, retail outlet centre and ancillary facilities, together with associated infrastructure works including access, car parking and landscaping, subject to referral to the Secretary of State, and on the basis that the application be brought back to the next meeting of the Committee with recommended conditions and negotiations with the applicant in respect of Section 106 obligations.  Members were asked to consider the report.

82.56         The Planning Officer indicated that a list of suggested conditions was attached at Appendix 1 to the report.  The applicant had confirmed agreement with those conditions subject to the addition of “staff rooms and storage areas” to the list of exclusions set out under the definition of “net sales area” which was considered to be acceptable. In terms of the Section 106 Agreement, the position in terms of contributions for transport related work had been agreed in accordance with the recommendations of County Highways.  It was noted that a separate unilateral undertaking for the safeguarding of land may be necessary for improvements to the A46 and Junction 9 of the M5 motorway.  Other elements included measures to mitigate the impact of the development on the health of Tewkesbury Town Centre and a total of £1.2M contributions had been agreed, which accorded with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations; the mitigation measures were not limited to, but included a number of the measures, set out at Appendix 3 to the report e.g. physical improvement to the town centre relating to town centre regeneration schemes and marketing and tourism initiatives.  It was important to have flexibility and the agreement reflected that; some of the payments would be required upon the grant of the planning permission with others coming forward once the various phases were brought into use.

82.57         A Member noted that the report set out that the total contributions for the Tewkesbury Town centre mitigation measures amounted to £1.79m, however, the Planning Officer had stated that this would be £1.2M.  The Planning Officer advised that discussions had been ongoing since the last Planning Committee meeting and it had been agreed that £1.2M was an appropriate figure in recognition of the benefits that would arise from the proposals.  The Member sought further information regarding the contribution towards the public art trail and was advised that this was a Tewkesbury town centre regeneration project and it was principally a walking/cycling route along the old railway line which was intended to make the link between the two more interesting. The Member went on to query why the shuttle bus between the development and Tewkesbury town centre was no longer included in the list of mitigation measures.  The Planning Officer explained that the developer had been intending to operate a shuttle bus, however, County Highways had been of the opinion that this should not be required given that it would compete with the normal bus service.  The view prior to the last Planning Committee was that it would not be appropriate to require the applicant to operate that service so it had not been worked into the agreement.  The Member questioned whether the normal bus service route would be amended to incorporate the new site and if the frequency of the service would be increased.  The Planning Officer indicated that she did not currently have that level of detail but she clarified that, in assessing the proposal, County Highways had considered the sustainability credentials in terms of the current operational bus service, the improvements being made and where the bus stops would be as part of the development.  A Member felt that the proposal was an exciting opportunity for Tewkesbury and the regeneration of the town centre however, he was of the view that it should be made as easy as possible for people to use the public transport system in order to get to the development, particularly in the east of the Borough where there were very few buses from places such as Bishop’s Cleeve and Winchcombe.  He raised particular concern about congestion on the A46 and felt that this was something which needed to be addressed.  Whilst she did not disagree, the Planning Officer explained that it was necessary to be proportionate in terms of the impact of the proposal and what harm would be reasonable for the developer to mitigate; it was very easy to look at the wider picture and see it as an opportunity to resolve existing problems but it was necessary to have justification for the measures which were being asked for.

82.58         A Member noted that much had been made of the impact of the scheme on Gloucester city centre, as well as Tewkesbury town centre, however, since the application had originally been submitted, Gloucester City Council had dropped the idea of a shopping centre in favour of a mixed use scheme, including a possible covered market and she questioned whether the Secretary of State had been informed of these changes.  The Planning Officer clarified that, to date, the Secretary of State had been sent the Committee report and resolution from 15 March and would also be sent the presentation and report from this meeting.  Whilst the plans for the King’s Quarter site in the city centre had changed, this issue was not something that the Council’s retail consultant considered would weigh against the proposal.

82.59         A Member indicated that he continued to have concern about the shuttle bus which had been part of the development since the consultation stage.  Whilst he recognised that County Highways did not favour the introduction of a shuttle bus, he questioned whether it could still be provided if the developer was willing to fund and operate it.  In his view, a shuttle bus into the development was very different to the existing bus service and people would not want to go out of the development to find a bus stop.  The Development Manager indicated that Officers could go back and renegotiate on the basis of the provision of the shuttle bus if Members so wished, however, it was important to recognise that there would be a potential impact on the existing bus service, which should be supported and improved where possible, and that it would go against the professional advice of County Highways.  In his view there was a strong likelihood that the existing bus service would be re-routed once the scheme was in operation in order to pick up people from within the development site.  A Member raised concern that it had taken a significant amount of time to reinstate the bus stop at Ashchurch Railway Station and she could not see why the bus company would re-route the service into a retail development where the majority of people would arrive by car.  The Development Manager indicated that he did not see the benefit of including the shuttle bus in the Section 106 Agreement and in his view it should be left up to the developer if it wished to provide that service. 

82.60         Having considered the information provided and views expressed, it was proposed, seconded and

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED in order to negotiate the provision of a shuttlebus linking the proposed development with Tewkesbury town centre.