Discount foodstore at Land At Lady Lane, Hadleigh

The site and surroundings

The site was an agricultural field outside Hadleigh’s settlement boundary, beside the A1071 and Lady Lane, with a public footpath and mature boundary vegetation.

“The site is located on the corner of the A1071 Hadleigh by-pass and Lady Lane. It comprises a 0.96-hectare agricultural field surrounded on all sides by a hedgerow interspersed with mature trees.”

“The site is located outside, but adjacent to, the Hadleigh settlement boundary. Lady Lane Industrial Estate is a Strategic Employment Site.”

Officer report

Earlier application history

An earlier screening opinion concerned the erection of a discount foodstore with access, parking, landscaping and associated works.

“REF: DC/24/03335 Request for Screening Opinion pursuant to The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 - Erection of a discount foodstore (Use Class E), with access, parking, landscaping, and other associated works. DECISION: EAN 16.08.2024”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal conflicted with the spatial strategy and retail policy, harmed the town centre, and lacked an acceptable wastewater treatment method.

“The proposed development is found likely to have a significant adverse impact upon the health of Hadleigh Town Centre based on the scale of direct trade diversion from the convenience goods sector and the Class E(a) retail sector as a whole; the scale of trade diversion from the Co-op store and its importance to the wider health and attractiveness of the centre; the importance of the grocery retail sector to the health of the centre; the health of the centre now and its…”

“The Environment Agency have stated that the information provided indicates that the applicant will not get a permit for discharge for the proposed non-mains drainage. The proposal, therefore, conflicts with Policy LP26 Part 3 (Water Resources and Infrastructure) because the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is capacity within the foul sewerage network and the receiving water recycling centre is available or can be made available in time to serve the development.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways accepted the revised proposal subject to conditions, while the Environment Agency objected to the proposed non-mains foul drainage and retail advisers identified town-centre harm.

“Environment Agency [Extract] “The proposed development is located close to an Anglian Water Services (AWS) foul sewer and there is an assumption to always connect to foul sewer where it’s reasonably practical (which in this case it is). AWS have stated their receiving works (Hadleigh Sewage Treatment Works) is at capacity, hence the developer’s proposal to install its own treatment system.”

“As it currently stands, in the information provided to us indicates that the applicant will not get a permit for discharge for the proposed non-mains drainage.”

Officer report

What people said

Objections concerned access, traffic, light, pollution, flooding, biodiversity, landscaping and town-centre effects; supporting comments welcomed choice, jobs and competition.

“Objection comments summarised as follows: • Poor access visibility (crosses 3 rd party land) • Transport assessment has deficiencies • Assessments reference a different location • Light pollution • Unsafe access (proximity to roundabout) • Absence of a metalled footway directly to the site along Lady Lane • Noise and pollution from additional traffic • No need for additional shopping provision • Increased litter • Loss of green space and natural habitat • Residential amenity…”

“Neutral comments summarised as follows: • Increased traffic along Lady Lane • Poor cycling and walking opportunities and infrastructure • Risk of trade diversion from Town Centre • Poor public transport • Need for drainage infrastructure • Biodiversity Net Gain will not offset development on agricultural land • Will reduce journeys to shops outside of Hadleigh • No consideration of soil protection • Potential impact on River Brett from pollution risk • Requirement for…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Members heard from a speaker representing Hadleigh Town Centre, an objector representing the East of England Co-operative, and the agent.

What members debated

Members debated town-centre and local-shop impacts, employment, highways, sustainability, landscaping, competition, vacant units and the Environment Agency response.

“The Area Planning Manager responded to a further question from Members regarding the application being presented to Committee before the deadline for the response from the Environment Agency, and provided confirmation that the response would not impact the fundamental issues with the application leading to the Officer recommendation.”

“Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the balance between the employment opportunities of the development and the existing local supply chain jobs which could be lost, the sustainability of the location, the loss of existing landscaping, the potential impact on the town centre and whether there was proven evidence, the opportunity for competition, the number of vacant units in the area, and the deadline for the response from the Environment…”

Minutes

How members voted

A recorded vote supported refusal by eight votes to one, with no abstentions.

“Councillor Grandon seconded the proposal and requested a Recorded Vote for the item. Councillor McLaren and Councillor Jamieson supported the request for a Recorded Vote.”

“In accordance with Committee and Sub-Committee Procedure Rule 13.4, the vote was recorded as follows:”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The committee refused permission because of significant adverse town-centre impact, the site’s location outside the settlement boundary and unacceptable wastewater information.

“The application site is located ‘out of centre’ being c.1.3km from the boundary of Hadleigh Town Centre. The proposed development is found likely to have a significant adverse impact upon the health of Hadleigh Town Centre based on the scale of direct trade diversion from the convenience goods sector and the Class E(a) retail sector as a whole; the scale of trade diversion from the Co-op store and its importance to the wider health and attractiveness of the centre; the…”

“NPPF Paragraph 95 states (inter alia) that where an application is likely to have a significant adverse impact on one or more of the considerations in Paragraph 94, it should be refused. JLP Policy LP11 Part 3 states that applications which are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of nearby centres will not be supported.”

Minutes