Planning Inspectorate Reference APP/E6840/A07/ 2049304/WF

Statement of Case on Behalf of SAUCE

(Pursuant to National Assembly for Wales Rules for Planning Appeals Circular 07/2003)

INTRODUCTION

The arguments against the Appeal which we will elaborate in our written statements of evidence are summarised below. General arguments precede those supporting the Planning committees Reasons for Rejection. A list of supporting documents is appended.

1. PRELIMINARY ARGUMENTS

1.(A) SAUCE will argue that this application was fundamentally flawed from the outset because of a disregard of planning fundamentals in favour of maximising financial benefit. One of the essential premises of a previously approved Outline Planning Application which had met general community approval and on which specific assurances were given, the need to avoid threatening the sustainability of the existing town centre, was disregarded. To this end the development brief, the Outline Consent and the invitations to developers provided for a foodstore, not the supermarket contained in the appeal scheme .

1.(B) We will evidence that this flawed application was recommended to Committee in an Officers Report which contained errors, omissions, and misrepresentations. These were only exposed to the Committee by Officers when faced with a legal challenge which set out the basis for a future Judicial Revue if the situation was not remedied. This legal challenge, with its detail of planning issues not satisfactorily addressed, was influential in the Committees final refusal of the Application.

1.(C) We will evidence that the Applicant is currently in negotiation with MCC with the object of making a new application which recognizes the shortcomings of the application being appealed. To quote from WAG rules for planning appeals, “ Appeals should only be made when all else has failed”

.

2. PLANNING ARGUMENTS

2.(A) We will evidence that the Councils definitive UDP policy on the development of the cattle market site is set out in detailed policy S7 of the Adopted Deposit Plan 2006. We will argue that the application being appealed is a departure from that policy and thus subject to Welsh Office Circular 39/92 as a departure application.

2.(B) We will further argue that the non-food retail accommodation for this development is inappropriate and likely to imbalance the natural development of the town, creating a disconnected, oversized retail satellite

2.(C) We will argue that, in terms of Public Consultation required under various regulations and guidance documents, the actions of the Developer and Landlord were inadequate, prejudicial and misleading.

2.(D) We will argue that, in view of the importance of the unresolved highway issues, the Application and the Officers Report to Committee were premature and remain so.

3. ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING REASONS FOR REFUSAL

SAUCE gives its wholehearted support to the Monmouthshire County Council (MCC) Planning Committee's Reasons for Rejection of Planning Application 12559. We will adduce arguments below in support of each of the 5 Reasons given by the Committee.

Reason 1 “ The proposed development, by virtue of its poor layout and design, would create a visually intrusive, and discordant element in the town centre, that fails to respect the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policies ENV1 (b and f) and DES1 (b, c and e) of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan”

3.1.(A) In almost every important respect, the proposals fail to meet the key requirement of the MCC Design/Development Brief, issued to all participants at the procurement stage.

3.1.(B) The proposals lack any sense of urban design or landscape strategy

3.1.(C) The layout concept of an “Urban retail park” centred on a large public car park is alien to the character and natural development of Abergavenny.

3.1.(D) The proposals lack a safe pleasant pedestrian avenue linking Bailey Park to the town.

3.1.(E) The over intensive provision of surface level car parking has contributed to a low amenity environment and avoidable problems throughout the development.

3.1.(F) Despite the late addition of cosmetic stone cladding, the approach to architectural design lacks cohesion and is unconvincing.

3.1.(G) In allowing the access to the underground car park to bisect the primary pedestrian route, and to cross directly in front of the Library block, and the cluster of disabled parking bays, the layout fails to deliver a safe public realm.

Reason 2 “ The site is adjacent to the Abergavenny Conservation Area. The low quality design of the proposed development fails to respect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to polices DES1 (b, c and e) and fails to retain the abattoir buildings, contrary to policy DES1 (f) which requires “ the incorporation of existing features that are of historic value”

3.2.(A) The location and design of the foodstore ignores the opportunity and desirability, for a genuinely active and appropriate frontage facing onto Lion street and the town centre.

3.2.(B) The overall design fails to recognize or exploit ways in which the special character of Abergavenny can be enhanced.

3.2.(C) In direct contravention of MCC's own policies the Design Brief and the Conservation Officers Report, the proposal fails to retain the Abattoir complex, in part or whole. Its retention is seen as important because it can offer diversity, interest, and the potential to enrich the project creating

“regeneration through heritage”.

3.2.(D) The decision to contract to demolish the Abattoir complex was based on commercial gain to both the Landlord and Developer.

Reason 3 “ The proposed 30% of net retail floor space devoted to non-food sales in the superstore will damage the viability and vitality of Abergavenny Town Centre contrary to Policy S1 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan ”.

3.3.(A) MCC and Wales planning policies, together with emerging policy from central Government, emphasise local sustainability and the need to preserve and enhance the economic vitality of town centres. We shall show that the proposed development violates these polices.

3.3.(B) We shall argue that the designation of the site as within the town centre Central Shopping Area is perverse and flies in the face of reality and common sense. The detachment from the de facto town

centre, admitted by MCC to be an issue, has not been resolved.

3.3.(C) Abergavenny's retail economy is unusual in being founded on a high proportion of independent specialist shops, without any single dominating retail presence, which makes it unusually vulnerable to the kind of comparison goods offering being proposed for the supermarket , with its aggressively competitive pricing. We shall evidence the town's attractiveness to visitors and shoppers from distant locations who appreciate its special character and argue that a significant disturbance in the retail balance will have serious economic consequences. We will explain how none of this was taken account of in the retail impact assessment commissioned in support of the development, and why that assessment is inherently flawed.

3.3.(D) The likely impact of a large general merchandise supermarket on a small market town like Abergavenny can be predicted by arithmetic and reasoning far less convoluted and opaque than that employed by the developer's retail consultants. We shall show that any supermarket of the size and product mix proposed in the application will damage Abergavenny by forcing the closure of many independent businesses. Yet this development is supposed to be a central plank in MCC's regeneration agenda for the town.

3.3.(E) Evidence from local towns and elsewhere supports our case that the proposed development will, contrary to its claims, seriously damage the town centre in contravention of both Wales and MCC policy.

3.3.(F) Planning precedent shows that the planning system is sensitive to the threat posed by ill-considered retailing, especially large supermarkets, and acts to protect and sustain existing town centres in accordance with both national and local planning policy, and also in accordance with common sense.

Reason 4 “ The applicants have failed to evidence that the proposal is acceptable in traffic impact terms and have not offered satisfactory proposals for mitigation measures. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy ENV1 (b) and MV10 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan. In failing to provide bus stops linked to the development the proposals are contrary to MV2 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan ”

3.4.(A) The size, content, arrangement of buildings, access roads and parking were determined, (and fixed by legal agreement), without benefit of any development studies ,and in particular without appraisal of the limitations of the site with respect to likely traffic congestion. Supporting studies accompanying the Application were deliberately limited in scope and were inadequate to justify the adoption of the pre-determined designs. The scale of the development should be limited by the additional traffic congestion that it causes or by the feasibility of appropriate measures to mitigate the predicted congestion.

3.4.(B) The evidence will show that repeated revisions of the first wholly inadequate Traffic Appraisal (TA) succeeded only in establishing that the proposed development would cause substantial and unacceptable peak period congestion on the A40. The effectiveness of the proposed introduction of an additional set of computer controlled traffic lights, as a mitigating measure is extremely limited and is disputed by auditors. The qualitative assessment of consequential congestion on town centre roads adjacent to the A40 trunk road has been simplistic and inadequate to quantify possible problems and devise solutions. Proposed traffic options for the related development of the Brewery Yard were not integrated with the Developers TA and conclude that they could give rise to additional traffic on the A40. No appraisal of the likely duration and consequences to town centre traffic of spoil removal from the underground car park have been attempted.

3.4.(C) We will evidence that up to the time of the Planning Committee's rejection of the Application The WAG Highways Directorate were still of the view that the Development was likely to give rise to unacceptable congestion on the A40 trunk road.

3.4.(D) The Application Plans show no specific provision of a Taxi Rank to facilitate the setting down and picking up of passengers without causing congestion. There is no specific provision for buses to service the development.

3.4.(E) The parking provision, layout of the parking areas, circulation and design of the access to the underground car park are likely to cause congestion at the entrance to the development exacerbating congestion on the A40.

Reason 5 “The concept, form and design of the residential block, located in a Retail Park, is inappropriate. The low amenity design and setting adjoining the access ramps to the underground car park fails to provide adequate ‘ defensible space ' or a safe, pleasant and hygienic environment for living. The overall design is of a poor standard which fails to meet the requirements of Policies ENV1 (a and f) and DES1 (a, b, e and g)”.

3.5.(A) The housing proposal, offering a slab block of flats above a wide expanse of public car parking and an access ramp in the setting of a retail park, is unacceptable in terms of location, form and concept.

3.5.(B) The scheme offers a poor quality, low amenity environment without sufficient levels of security or safety for residents and the public.

3.5.(C) The “Travelodge” approach to design of permanent residential accommodation is considered highly inappropriate.

4. DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE

1.(A) Minutes of Planning Committee Meetings and the published part of Building Agreement between MCC and Henry Boot; Correspondence with Carwyn Davies Minister for Environment Planning & Countryside

1.(B) Minutes of Planning Committee Meetings and correspondence with Public Interest lawyers

1.(C) Abergavenny Regeneration Project - Design Competition Proposals. Various press articles

2.(A) MCC Deposit Plan and regulatory circulars

2.(B) Relevant national, Welsh and MCC policies and local evidence on siting and linkage

2.(C) National and Welsh guidance notes on Consultation

2.(D) Officers Report to Planning Committee

3.1.(A) to (H) Developers Design Proposals and the MCC Design Brief

3.2.(A) to (D) MCC Design Brief, MCC Scoring Matrix, and report of the Conservation Officer.

3.3.(A) & (B) Relevant national, Welsh and MCC policies and local evidence on siting and linkage

3.3.(C) Previous retail studies commissioned by MCC, the developer's retail impact assessment and more recent arguments developed by Friends of the Earth, and supported by other local evidence

3.3.(D) A worked out credible scenario will be submitted and supported by local evidence

3.3.(E) & (F) Relevant planning decisions will be evidenced

3.4.(A) & (B) Transport Assessment Reports ( TA's) B to E by Capita Symonds (Altrincham); Audits for Welsh Assembly Government and for MCC by Capita Gwent consultancy and TMS Consultants; Transport Assessment Report for MCC by Capita Gwent Consultancy

3.4.(C) Correspondence with Welsh Assembly Government, Highways Directorate

3.4.(D) & (E) Relevant Application Plans

3.5.(A) to (C) Developers drawings and various reports including from Gwent Police

5. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED

Our case will draw mainly on the following documents, some of which support more than one argument :

Planning Policy Wales. March 2002. Published by the National Assembly for Wales, Cardiff.

Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement - Planning for Retailing and Town Centres (MIPPS - 02/2005) dated December 2005.

Planning Guidance (Wales) Technical Advice Note (Wales) 4.

The Sustainable Communities Bill.

Photographs of, and from, the site.

Statement of evidence by Dr. D.M.Brancher

Various correspondence with Mr. George Ashworth, MCC Head of Planning

Relevant articles in national and local press

'Abergavenny Town Centre Retail Study' Feb. 2002 by Colliers CRE, commissioned by MCC.

Reference to Competition Commission reports.

New Economics Foundation study 'Clone Town Britain' published in 2005.

Minutes of MCC Planning Committee meetings.

'Retail Assessment' by RPS Planning, prepared on behalf of Henry Boot Developments Ltd, January 2006

'Retail Assessment' by RPS Planning Transport and Environment, prepared for Chelverton, supporting the development at the former Dunlop Semtex factory site, Brynmawr, January 2004.

Paper written originally for the Abergavenny Facilities Group of MCC Officers by Barry Greenwood in July 2006 and updated for evidencing in this appeal.

Relevant decisions by Planning Inspectors

'MP's speech reported in Hansard

MCC Design Brief

MCC Scoring Matrix

Report of Conservation Officer

Report of Gwent police

TA for Proposed Foodstore @ Abergavenny Capita Gwent Consultancy

Revised Transport Assessment Final (TA) Rev B Capita Symonds Ltd (Altrincham Office)

Building Agreement MCC/Henry Boot Everards LLP 01/11/2005

Audit of Revised Tranport Assessment Capita Gwent Consultancy 20/04/2006

Request & Jutification for "Call In" by WAG SAUCE 24/04/2006

Transport Assessment Revision C Capita Symonds Ltd (Altrincham Office) 11/08/2006

Audit of TA Report (RevC) TMS Consultancy 22/08/2006

Audit of TA Report (RevC) Capita Gwent Consultancy 22/09/2006

Transport Assessment Revision E Capita Symonds Ltd (Altrincham Office) 00/12/2006

Letter To G. Ashworth re Application M12559 Public Interest Lawyers 06/12/2006

Audit of Transport Assessment Revision E Capita Gwent Consultancy 22/01/2007

Highways Impact of Development in Abergavenny Capita Gwent Consultancy 00/06/2006

Design Rec' for Underground Car Parks Institution of Structural Engineers

Miscellaneous correspondence with Welsh Assembly Government, Highways Department and Auditors