1.4 The relocated petrol filling station in the south west corner of the site would provide twelve pump stands arranged between wider isles than are currently available at the existing petrol filling station. The kiosk will have a floor space area of 70m² and is an exact copy of the existing facility. To the rear of the kiosk are proposed a car wash and jet was facility. The height of the petrol filling station awning is 5m² in comparison with the existing Tesco building of 10.6m. The impact of the petrol filling station will be further reduced by the proposed lowering of the ground floor level at this point by approximately 2m sheltering the facility behind the existing grass embankment.

1.5 The proposed car park needs to be reconfigured to provide a total of 686 car parking spaces and 14 motorcycle spaces. The current car park provides 750 spaces. Of the new spaces 30 will be provided for disabled parking and 29 will be allocated as parent/toddler spaces.

1.6 The store will be accessed from a new three-armed roundabout located on the existing access road some 230m from the junction with Brading Road. The roundabout will serve to provide access to the rear service yard of the new store by delivery vehicles and access to all the car parking spaces from a new road which will form part of the proposed car parking layout. The petrol filling station will have its own entrance and exit with the existing access road situated some 80m from the Brading Road junction. The applicants have amended the entrance/exit layout for the petrol filling station in response to Members’ concerns outlined at the last Development Control Sub-Committee (20 December 2005). The amended junction provides for a left and right turn exit from the petrol filling station and a queuing lane for waiting traffic. Vehicles wishing to head straight for the store will be able to do so without interference from the filling station traffic. There would be sufficient capacity for 42 standing cars (using the pumps and queuing) at the petrol station in comparison with 24 associated with the existing facility.

1.7 Since the decision to defer consideration of the application in January 2006, the applicants have confirmed that the new store would receive on average 8 lorry deliveries per day. This would represent an increase of 2 to 4 lorries over the existing store which receives approximately 6 per day. A revised road layout has been submitted accommodating a new HGV lorry waiting area and screening.

1.8 A new bus stop lay-by is proposed on the existing access road which will drop passengers off at a distance of some 110m from the front door of the proposed new store. Tesco have secured by agreement with Southern Vectis that all commercial bus services that utilise the Brading Road, as well as the Tesco free bus services, will use this bus stop.

1.9 The parking layout and internal access routes have been amended to accommodate buses seeking to alight passengers directly in front of the main entrance to the store building.

1.10 Proposals include a new pedestrian and cycle access link from the east side of Brading Road, immediately to the south of the current IMO car wash facility. This link will be approximately 150m long between Brading Road and the main front entrance of the proposed store.

1.11 The planning application was originally submitted with the following supporting documents:

§ A retail and planning assessment prepared by DPP.

§ A transport assessment prepared by Boreham Consulting Engineers.

§ A landscape supporting statement prepared by EPCAD.

§ An ecological assessment prepared by EPCAD.

§ A drainage review prepared by White Young Green.

§ Revised layout accommodating a HGV waiting area (February 2006).

1.12 Since the submission of the original application in July 2004, additional information has been provided that includes:

§ Additional landscape information for the petrol filling station (August 2005).

§ A petrol filling station access briefing note (January 2005).

§ Revised access route within car parking area (November 2005).

§ Confirmation of HGV lorry movements (January 2006).

1.13 Tesco have offered a contribution of £190,000 towards the improvement of Ryde town centre as a mitigation measure towards any impact that the new store would have. Officers requested that Tesco reconsider their offer in the light of Members’ concerns outlined at the previous Development Control Sub-Committee (20 December 2005). They are also offering a public transport contribution of £56,000 towards the re-routing of all Brading Road commercial services to the proposed new bus stop on the Tesco access road. These contributions would be included within a Section 106 Agreement.

1.14 The agents acting for TESCO, DPP, have acknowledged members’ request for further contributions but point out that they have already improved their offer towards the improvement of Ryde town centre significantly. They do not consider that a further increase of the contribution to deal with other environmental issues as being necessary.

2. Location and Site Characteristics

2.1 The proposed development site broadly comprises the existing Tesco store, its petrol filling station and car parking area. It also includes a former go-kart track to the north (formerly developed land) and an area of mature woodland and landscaping to the north and north east. Immediately to the west of the site of the proposed store building are located the Jehovah Witness’ Kingdom Hall (18m) between which would be a retained fence and line of mature landscaping, the Imo car wash facility (90m) and the rear of the McDonald’s fast food takeaway at 75m. The rear of the nightclub is situated at 20m from the north western most point of the proposed store. The nearest houses are located to the north of the site at Mulberry Way, at a distance of some 80m. Between the service yard and these houses is a line of mature woodland and undeveloped land. To the east of the site of the proposed new store are the vacant vehicle museum buildings and the Westridge Leisure Centre situated some 50 – 100m away.

3. Relevant History

3.1 Outline planning permission for the Tesco Store was originally granted on appeal in August 1979. It also granted consent for development of the adjoining recreation and leisure complex. The permission restricted the store to the provision of 1,394m² for convenience goods and 1,115m² for durable goods.

3.2 The petrol filling station and bus lay-by facilities were granted in January 1982.

3.3 In January 1984 permission was granted for the enlargement of the Tesco Store to provide a new floor space limit of 1,858m² for convenience goods and 1,245m² for sale of comparison goods.

3.4 In August 1992 the Council approved a variation of planning condition to enable an increase in floor space area for the sale of convenience goods; no alternative condition was imposed to restrict the floor space of the store.

3.5 Permissions were granted in April 1994 and April 1995 which enabled an expansion of the total floor space to 6,760m². No conditions were imposed to limit the amount of convenience or comparison floor space within the overall area.

3.6 In November 2002 permission was granted for the extension of the bulk storage area by 783m² to give a new total floor space for the store of 7,543m².

3.7 In June 2003 a Certificate of Proposed Lawful Use or Development was issued enabling the installation of a new mezzanine floor within the existing Tesco Store building. The mezzanine floor would increase substantially the available retail floor space. Tescos have stated that the mezzanine floor would provide a total internal floorspace of 9,100 m² with a net sales area of 6,600 m² (equivalent to the proposed store currently before members). TESCO have provided evidence of the commencement of the mezzanine floor scheme.

4. Development Plan Policy

4.1 National Guidance

· PPS6 was published in March 2005 replacing the former PPG6. PPS6 states (paragraph 3.4) that applicants should be required to demonstrate the following:

(a) the need for development,

(b) that development is of an appropriate scale,

(d) that there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres and

(e) that locations are accessible.

· PPS6 requires that retail assessments prepared in support of planning applications need to be based on those carried out with development plan documents. In assessing the need and capacity for additional retail and leisure development, greater weight should be placed on quantitative need for additional floor space. PPS6 does acknowledge, however, that account should be taken of qualitative considerations. The guidance also requires that a sequential approach to site selection should be applied to all development proposals for main town centre uses for sites that are not in an existing centre. Developers and operators need to demonstrate they have been flexible about the proposed business model. PPS6 also states the following material considerations may also be taken into account, these being:

(a) physical regeneration,

(b) employment creation,

· PPG 13 entitled Transport states “A key planning objective is to ensure that jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. This is important for all, but especially for those who do not have a regular use of a car and to promote social inclusion.” Paragraph 35 of PPG13 states “At the local level preference should be given to town centre sites followed by edge of centre and, only then, out of centre sites in locations which are, or will be, served by public transport. Where there is a clearly established need for such development and it cannot be accommodated in or on the edge of existing centres it may be appropriate to combine the proposal with existing out of centre developments provided that improvements to public transport can be negotiated.”

4.2 Strategic Policy

The relevant strategic policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan are considered to be S1, S2, S5, S6 and S14.

4.3 Local Planning Policy

The following policies are relevant:

· G4 General Locational Criteria for Development

· D1 Standards of Design

· D2 Standards for Development Within the Site

· TR3 Locating Development to Minimise the Need to Travel

· TR7 Highway Considerations for New Development

· TR16 Parking Policies and Guidelines

· R2 New Retail Development

· R4 Development on Unidentified Sites

· P5 Reducing Impact of Noise

5. Consultee and Third Party Comments

5.1 Internal Consultees

· Highways Engineers have no objection to the proposals subject to applying conditions on agreeing road details, parking and pedestrian and cycle access. The increase in the number of HGV service lorries to the proposed store raises no concern.

· Environmental Health Officers recommend applying a condition seeking the provision of a scheme to minimise noise impacts to nearby residents and the control of delivery times.

· The Conservation and Design Tam Leader considers this site to be one of generally large buildings, many of which are contemporary in design. The scale and style of the proposal is therefore not out of context. The area is commercial with ‘form following function.’ The store design is an honest solution to this area.

5.2 External Consultees

· The Environment Agency have proposed a number of planning conditions which prevent the pollution of water, prevent flooding, prevent the discharge of hydro carbons, prevent the pollution of ground water and which seek to the prevention of contamination of any underlying aquifers.

5.3 Town and Parish Council

· Nettlestone and Seaview Parish Council objected to the following:

· The relocation of the petrol filling station due to potential problems of queuing traffic and the impact on Brading Road.

· The questionable benefits of a second car wash so close to the existing facility to the north of the site.

5.4 Third Party Responses

· Roger Tym and Partners, acting for Somerfield, cite that the proposals are contrary to the Unitary Development Plan for the following reasons:

· The proposed site lies outside the development envelope for Ryde.

· The proposals prejudice the policy which identifies the site for leisure use and tourism.

· Additional retail development lies outside of the Ryde town centre.

· There will be an unacceptable impact on Ryde town centre and other centres on the Island.

· The sequential test has not been applied in accordance with PPS6

· Islandwatch object on the grounds that proposals will lead to more traffic generation.

· King Sturge, acting on behalf of SEEDA and the regeneration of East Cowes have expressed concerns that the sequential analysis of alternative sites has not appropriately addressed all options. They do not wish this to be considered an objection but merely to seek to ensure that appropriate avenues have been considered.

· The Isle of Wight Bus Users Group have objected on the grounds that buses shall have direct access to the front entrance of the store and as such the layout should be amended.

· Isle of Wight Friends of the Earth have objected on the following grounds:

· Impact on the Ryde economy.

· Effect on local employment.

· Increased car generation.

· Feeble mitigation put forward by Tesco to counter negative impacts.

· A further letter from the Isle of Wight Bus Users Group has been received that requests that two original letters from Southern Vectis dated 1 October 2004 and 18 October 2004 should be reported to Members of Development Control Sub Committee and be considered in respect of the application. In each of the letters attached by the Bus Users Group Southern Vectis outline their concerns of objections to the proposals on the grounds that they do not encourage future use of public transport and that priority is given over to the motorist. At that time Southern Vectis were also objecting to the positioning of the new store, the petrol station and the parking areas in the interests of public transport passengers.

· A letter has been received from a former shopkeeper in Sandown who objects to the proposal on the grounds of detrimental impact to existing town centres, namely Ryde and Sandown. The Isle of Wight is now sufficiently served by large stores and no further additions are required.

· A letter of objection has been received from the Chairman of the Ryde Community Forum who objects to the proposals on the following grounds:

· Neither the Forum nor the Ryde Business Association has ever been consulted in connection with any retail study carried out in Ryde.

· SRB funding use over the last few years in Ryde has attracted new businesses into the town providing sustainability in the main shopping areas. A Tesco store of this size will seriously affect the stability of all Ryde town centre shops and employment opportunities provided.

· The proposals also contradict various Council policies and will undoubtedly increase traffic congestion in the Westridge area.

· A letter of objection has been received from Staddlestones Garage in Brading Road and they object to the relocation of the petrol filling station on the following grounds:

· Impact on sales of petrol from the existing Brading Road garage.

· Impact on traffic flow that will lead to traffic congestion on Brading Road.

· The impact of queuing of traffic to the petrol filling station.

· There is a need for a thorough traffic flow survey to ascertain true impact.

· The Isle of Wight Quality Transport Partnership (QTP) have objected (late representation) on the following grounds:

· Lack of bus access to store by bus

· Impact on transport infrastructure in Ryde

· Contrary to Local Plan and Local Transport Plan Policy

· The MP has written a letter of objection and raises the following issues:

· The proposed bus stop is too far from the front door of the store.

· There is no evidence as to what type of improvements to Ryde town centre would mitigate the loss of shoppers from the local economy.

· The applicant fails to demonstrate that the proposals comply with the requirements of PPS6 (Planning for Town Centres).

· The development is not accessible for walkers.

· The Drivas Jonas report expects that surplus of expenditure should be spent; this is not a fair reflection of how Islanders behave.

· No information is provided about the capacity of vacant shops.

· No information is provided on the number of jobs that will be lost as a result of the proposal.

· There is no mention of additional traffic congestion and unsustainable road mileage which would result from proposals. Proposals do not seek to reduce traffic.

· The diversion of the Brading Road bus services will increase travel times between Ryde and other destinations.

· There is no reason why there should be a significant departure from the UDP and why is this acceptable.

· Government guidance is against traffic generation on this scale which will add further congestion to the Ryde/Shanklin corridor.

· A letter from the National Farmers Union has been received which raises objections on the following grounds:

· The proposals do not detail any action to reduce food miles (the distance food is travelled between producer and retailer).

· There is insufficient investigation regarding the levels of traffic congestion which may result from the development.

· Little consideration appears to have been given to the effects of this competition to local retailers.

5.5 Neighbours

Six residents have objected on the following grounds:

· Contravenes UDP policy

· Impact on existing town centres

· Concern on layout and design of disabled parking.

· Insufficient disabled parking spaces.

· Impact of noise from the rear service yard to residents of Mulberry Way.

· The issue of flash flooding which needs to be resolved prior to the construction of the new store.

· Existing store is of sufficient size.

6. Evaluation

6.1 The key issues to be considered in determining this application are as follows:

§ Retail capacity and headroom assessment

§ The need for the new store.

§ Potential impacts on existing town centres.

§ Sequential test

§ Access, car parking and the proposed road layout.

§ Access for public transport.

§ Impact on residential amenity.

§ Response to representations received.

§ Design and Scale

Retail Capacity and Headroom Assessment

6.2 The Isle of Wight Council has sought help in the determination of this planning application from consultants Drivas Jonas with particular regard to the issues of identifying need and in the assessment of retail capacity in the Cowes, Newport, Ryde, Sandown and Shanklin catchment area. In October 2004 Drivas Jonas outlined their response to DPP’s retail assessment in a report submitted to the Isle of Wight Council. This was subsequently followed up by the publication of Drivas Jonas’s Islandwide Retail Capacity Study in June 2005 which was essentially produced to review the Unitary Development Plan and to respond to national guidance, PPG 6 Town Centres and Retail Developments that development plans should be based on an up to date assessment of retail capacity. This report, nevertheless, provides the context for the determination of this application with regard to retail capacity and need.

6.3 The Drivas Jonas report (June 2005) identifies projected retail capacity for both convenience and comparison shops. It does so by firstly defining respective catchment areas within which people travel to shop and (by applying projected population estimates) calculates average and future expenditure. The report assesses available expenditure for convenience and comparison goods at 2006, 2011 and 2016. The report uses several data sources to identify the total amount of comparison and convenience goods floor space including commitments on the Island. Finally, the report compares future levels of expenditure with existing turnover estimates based on national turnover figures and translates the residual expenditure into floor space requirements.

6.4 The 2005 Drivas Jonas report concluded that for convenience retailing there would be a net surplus of expenditure of some £22.6 million by 2006 and some £25.3 million pounds by 2011. The report goes on to state the Council should make provision for this and states that the increased turnover is the equivalent of a small superstore or several medium sized stores. The report is also aware that at the time the Council had received applications for the new Tesco store (subject of this application) and for a new store in Shanklin which has subsequently been approved (the Lidl store). The Drivas Jonas report finally concludes that the level of capacity is sufficient to support the current proposals (namely the Tesco application, the Lidl’s proposal and the proposed store to form part of the East Cowes Regeneration). Concerning comparison retailing the report forecasts a surplus of expenditure that would support an additional 37,917m² gross of comparison floor space. The report identifies particular potential for take up of convenience floor space in Newport.

6.5 In October 2005 the Council was notified of Sainsbury’s intention to submit a planning application for the extension of its store in Newport. In the light of the fact that the Sainsbury’s store is a town centre site, whereas Tesco is an out of centre, and the fact that this would potentially have a further impact on the take up of retail capacity, Drivas Jonas were further instructed to update their retail headroom exercise. The application for the extension of the Sainsbury store has now been received and will be determined in due course. Attached as Appendix 1 to this report is Drivas Jonas’ letter which confirms that there is sufficient headroom to accommodate the potential Sainsbury’s extension (if granted), the Lidl store at Shanklin, the foodstore at East Cowes and the Tesco redevelopment proposals currently before you. In summary the letter states that if the East Cowes, Sainsbury’s and Lidl proposals are fully implemented there would still be a net surplus of expenditure of some £14.3 million (excluding tourist expenditure). This is significantly more than the increased turnover of the proposed new store at Tesco (£6.2 million).

6.6 The work undertaken for the Isle of Wight Council by Drivas Jonas confirms there is sufficient retail capacity to accommodate commitments and proposals for town centre expansion and development for convenience retail as well as the proposals for the new redeveloped store at Tesco. Beyond this there would still be an expenditure surplus of some £8.1 million excluding tourist expenditure that should be provided for elsewhere.

Need

6.7 DPP’s retail and planning assessment submitted in support of the application identifies the quantitative need. This is demonstrated by the comparison of the existing store’s trading performance against Tesco’s company average levels. DPP state that the existing store overtrades by some 30% above the company average. The overtrading situation has been exacerbated by the growth and expenditure which will set to continue. They state that this is a valid demonstration of quantitative need for the redevelopment proposals arising specifically from the existing Tesco store. DPP also seek to demonstrate that the growth and expenditure in convenience goods and comparison goods far exceeds any increase in the turnover of the existing store.

6.8 In terms of qualitative need DPP state that in spite of the success and popularity of the existing store it also has distinct problems with overcrowding, in store congestion, stock control problems, queuing, restocking difficulties and “a generally uncomfortable shopping experience for the customer, particularly at busy periods in the summer. Whilst Tesco have a number of planning consents and a Lawful Development Certificate for the extension on floor space area, the internal layout of the store will continue to be compromised by the fact that it has evolved over many years, rather than being specifically planned from the outset. DPP state that the new store would resolve these problems by placing storage and preparation areas in close proximity to where they are needed on the shop floor and that a more efficient use of floor space would enable customers to receive the best service possible.

6.9 DPP state that the new store would provide an additional 80 jobs in addition to the 400 that are currently employed. Whilst employment is not an overriding component of need, DPP promote this as a valid material consideration.

6.10 The case for both the qualitative and quantitative need put forward by DPP is acknowledged. Planning officers accept the case for the need, particularly in the light of the conclusions made by Drivas Jonas in their headroom exercise identifying retail capacity. Should Tesco implement their current consents and options for the installation of a mezzanine floor, this would undoubtedly result in a poorer quality store environment in comparison with the proposals for the new store, and one that would not trade so efficiently.

Potential Impacts on Existing Town Centres

6.11 The DPP report acknowledges that either the mezzanine floor scheme (and expansion consents) and the new store proposals would have some impact on town centre expenditure for convenience goods. It is anticipated that a new store would have a slightly higher impact than the mezzanine scheme since it is considered it would be more attractive to customers and therefore likely to generate additional turnover. DPP state that the new store would have a convenience turnover of some £54.7 million and a comparison goods turnover of £10.17 million, resulting in a total good turnover of £64.9 million, this would compare to £62.13 million for the mezzanine scheme. DPP report there would be potential impacts on expenditure as follows:

Somerfield in Ryde - 4.3%

Iceland in Ryde around 1.1%

Other stores in Ryde - 1.9%

Morrisons in Sandown – 2.5%

Morrisons in Newport – 0.8%

Sainsbury’s in Newport – 0.9%

The report also acknowledges that Tesco Express at Wootton would experience an impact of around 2.6%. The impact cited by DPP they argue, would not undermine the future viability of the stores or centres to which they belong, indeed DPP consider the impacts to be low level.

6.12 Officers accept that some impact on existing stores and expenditure in town centres is inevitable. However it is accepted that such impacts would be insufficient to undermine the future viability of the other stores and as such this would not raise an objection in policy terms. Moreover the fact that the existing Tesco store has consents for its extension and an LDC for a mezzanine floor, these schemes could be implemented irrespective of any further examination with regard to need or impact. The offer of a financial contribution for the improvement of Ryde town centre made as part of the proposals for the new store is appropriate given the increased impact that the new store is likely to have above the expansion of the existing store. This contribution would seek to ensure that the vitality and viability of Ryde town centre is maintained.

6.13 The impact on Ryde town centre resulting from this proposed development is a material consideration. Although the impact on Ryde is described as within the DPP report as low (confirmed by Drivers Jonas’ findings), it is not considered to be ‘de minimus’. Neither is the impact on Ryde town centre considered to be unacceptable. In any event, the low level impact can be mitigated against by the payment of £190,000 towards improvement works in Ryde.

Sequential Test

6.14 Whilst the current Tesco proposals are for a new store, these need to be considered in the light of the fact that there is an existing store for which there is already a consent and an LDC for increased floor space that would not have to undergo the sequential test. DPP have nevertheless provided a sequential analysis of potential options or alternative sites for a new store. They consider that Ryde, in particular its town centre, is extensively developed and there is insufficient space or any appropriate sites available for the type of store proposed. The one available site identified in the Unitary Development Plan in George Street has already been taken up by Somerfield. In respect of any edge of centre site, DPP conclude there are no viable alternative options for the ‘complete store’ proposed. DPP have also considered whether a proportion of additional floor space such as for the comparison goods could be separated and accommodated within vacant units in the town centre. The conclusion is that by separating the floor space in this way, a single retailer could not practically, or viably, operate the various stores created with increased overheads and the need for widespread duplication of product ranges. In any event, the alternative to that scenario would be the implementation of existing consents for the extension of the current store including the installation of the mezzanine floor.

6.15 With regard to Newport, the UDP identifies four sites, all of which are in the periphery of the main shopping centre, only one of which remains undeveloped, namely the Newport Fire Station site in South Street. This site has, however, been discounted on grounds of availability. A relocation to Newport would also seem inappropriate considering that there are already two large food store retailers in the town and that a relocation of Tesco would distort current retail travel patterns.

6.16 Officers are satisfied that the sequential test provided by DPP as part of the planning application is appropriate. They agree that there are no ‘more appropriate’ sites available for the proposed new TESCO store when considering possible alternative sites. They also consider that the current Tesco site and location is established. It is served by public transport and is now accompanied by adjacent alternative trip generating uses. The site therefore encourages multiple use trips and as such the existing site is considered to be more sustainable than an alternative option of seeking a new out of centre site.

Access and Car Parking

6.17 The level of car parking proposed as part of the scheme is considered appropriate and meets the requirements of PPG13. Highway Engineers raise no objection to the proposed road layout. Further information concerning the queuing distances of the proposed petrol filling station submitted by the applicants’ Highway Consultants Forum confirms the siting of the junction to be acceptable.

6.18 A revision to the access layout has been provided that would enable bus access directly to the front main entrance of the Tesco building if required in the future.

6.19 The increase in the number of servicing lorries is not considered by officers to be significant. A potential increase of 2 to 4 daily HGV vehicles represents a very small increase in the average number of HGV movements on Brading Road. Moreover, such an increase would occur in the event of TESCOs completing the mezzanine floor in the existing store.

Impact on Residential Amenity

6.20 Officers support the application of planning conditions to protect the amenity of residents to the north of the proposed store. This will seek n noise reduction from operations and control hours of delivery.

Design and Scale

6.21 The design and scale of the proposed store is considered appropriate.

Public Transport

6.22 Proposals for a new bus stop on the access road are welcomed. These will result in all commercial services on the Brading Road directly access the Tesco store site. Whilst the stop is still situated some 100m from its main entrance at the new Tesco store, officers are keen that the walkway should be covered and propose to provide a condition that seeks to agree design of the walkway prior to the commencement of the scheme.

Responses to Representations Received

6.23 Officers consider that the sequential test outlined in the supporting documentation provided by DPP is appropriate and accords with national guidance. Whilst the site lies outside of the development envelope for Ryde the location, nevertheless, provides for multiple use trips when considering adjacent traffic generating uses.

6.24 Whilst it is acknowledged that there may be impacts on Ryde town centre, these are considered of minor nature and are mitigated by the proposed contribution towards improvements to the upgrading of the town centre environment.

6.25 Officers acknowledge that the proposed site encompasses part of the leisure/tourism allocation in the Unitary Development Plan (Policy T7(d)). The proposal is nevertheless considered appropriate as a significant leisure scheme in this location is feasible in land use terms whilst the opportunity for multiple use trips would be supported.

6.26 The use of conditions will seek to secure an adequate provision of parking spaces for the disabled. They will also ensure that the appropriate measures are put into place to reduce any impact from the rear service yard on residents of Mulberry Way and beyond.

6.27 Officers acknowledge that the use will generate significant levels of traffic, however, improved measures for alternative means of access are proposed as part of the scheme, including a more direct relationship between all commercial bus routes on Brading Road and the Tesco store as well as improved access for pedestrians and cyclists.

7. Conclusion and Justification for Recommendation

7.1 The application seeks consent for the redevelopment of an existing store. A key issue remains, that Tesco could lawfully increase the retail floor space of their current store without requiring any further consent. Planning conditions are such that they would be able to sell any amount of either comparison or convenience goods.

7.2 The proposals would provide a new store that would represent an improved shopping facility than the current building which dates back to the early 1980s and which has been subsequently added to by various extensions.

7.3 This location is an established one for Tesco. There are already adjacent traffic or trip generating uses which together represent an area that would generate multiple use trips.

7.4 The retail headroom exercises have demonstrated that there is adequate and sufficient retail capacity to accommodate not only this Tesco application but also those that by definition are located in town centres as defined by PPS6. These include Sainsbury’s in Newport, a proposed foodstore as part of the East Cowes regeneration, Tesco in Wootton and the Lidl store in Shanklin.

7.5 The sequential analysis has demonstrated that there are no more appropriate sites for a new expanded Tesco store. The impacts on Ryde town centre are considered to be minimal whilst the contribution towards the upgrade of the centre are deemed appropriate mitigation against any negative impacts.

7.6 The building is of an appropriate design and the proposed landscaping scheme adequately shields the proposed petrol filling station on the south west corner of the site. The proposals will have a greatly reduced impact on Brading Road where the existing building has a dominant and overbearing presence.

7.7 Alternative means of access to the site by way of improved bus links and access by pedestrians and cyclists are supported.

8. Recommendation

It is recommended that conditional planning permission is resolved to be granted, subject to a S106 Agreement, and subject to referral to the Secretary of State as a departure from the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Informative:

You are advised that the signage shown on the permitted drawings has not been granted consent and is subject to consideration under different regulations.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	UN1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	UN18	The new store hereby permitted shall have a total sales floor space area of no greater than 6,603m². Reason: To maintain control over the level of floor space available for the sale of all goods and comply with Policy R4 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	UN3	No more than 30% of the net sales area of the store hereby approved shall be used for the sale of durable goods, the definition of which shall include items such as books, clothing and footwear, electrical items, audio-visual equipment, soft furnishings and textiles, hardware, recreational and other miscellaneous goods. Reason: To maintain control over the level of floorspace available for the sale of durable goods and to comply with policy R4 of the IW Unitary Development Plan
4	UN2	The operation of the site including the number and arrangements for deliveries shall be the subject of a Store Management Plan with final details to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any work commences on site. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	UN4	A scheme to minimise the emissions of noise affecting nearby residential premises shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The scheme shall anticipate noise emissions from the operation of plant. Machinery, business activities and include physical controls, operational restrictions and administrative controls, where appropriate. The proposed controls should ensure that the rating level, determined in accordance with BS4142 1997, of the noise emitted from the proposed supermarket is lower than the existing “night-time” (between 23:00 and 07:00 hours daily) background noise level by at least 3 dB (and shall have no significant tonal component within any 1/3 Octave Band Level. Any 1/3 octave band level is 5 dB or above the adjacent band levels the tone is deemed to be significant), and shall not exceed the existing “daytime” (between 07:00 and 23:00 hours daily) background noise level at any time (and shall have no significant tonal component within any 1/3 Octave Band Level), by measurement or calculation. The survey should also include details of the likely LAmax(f) levels arising from the proposed use including their anticipated frequency and projected times of occurrence and should be calculated at a position 1 metre from the boundary of the closest or most likely affected noise sensitive premises, to the proposed development. The existing background noise level should be determined at a point 1 metre from the boundary of closest or most likely affected noise sensitive premises, to the proposed development. (A competent person may be contacted through “The Association of Noise Consultants” 6 Trap Road Guilden Morden Nr Royston Herts SG8 OJE Telephone 01763 852958.). Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular sleep disturbance from noise emissions from the premises.
6	UN5	There shall be no deliveries (including delivery or service vehicle movements) unloading or handling of delivered goods in the service area before 7:00 am or after 11:00 pm Mondays to Saturdays before 8.00am or after 7.00pm on Sundays and at no time on Christmas Day or Easter Day. Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular sleep disturbance from noise emissions from the premises.
7	UN6	Development shall not begin until details of the design, surfacing and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses and car parking areas, together with details of the means of disposal of surface water drainage therefrom have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	UN7	Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, a scheme indicating the provision to be made for disabled people to gian access to the store shall be submitted to and approved by the Local planning Authority in writing. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the development hereby permitted is brought into use. Reason: to ensure adequate access for disabled persons and to comply with policy D12 (Access for People with Disabilities) of the IW Unitary development Plan.
9	UN8	The building shall not be occupied until the means of vehicular access thereto has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	UN9	The buildings shall not be occupied until the means of access thereto for pedestrians and cyclists has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure adequate safe provision of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists wishing to gain access to the site and to comply with policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	UN10	The buildings shall not be occupied until a company travel plan, including phasing of implementation, has been agreed in writing with the local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that alternative means of transport to the site are provided for to achieve aims of reducing the need to travel by car in accordance with guidance outlined in PPG13 – Transport.
12	UN11	Before the use commences, a scheme showing details of the facilities to be provided for the deposit of refuse by customers shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works forming part of the approved scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the use commences and shall thereafter be retained. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and the occupiers of nearby properties and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	UN12	No loading equipment, stock, delivered stock or stock awaiting collection, finished or unfinished packaging crates or boxes shall be stacked or stored on the site at any time except within the building or the dedicated service yard identified for that purpose on the approved plans. Reason: In the interest of visual appearance of the site and the visual amenity of the surrounding area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
14	UN13	No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include [proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (eg. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines, etc, indicating lines, manholes, supports, etc); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant]. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
15	UN14	The building shall not be brought into use until details of any floodlighting to be installed have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
16	UN15	No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
17	UN16	No development shall take place until details of the materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
18	UN17	No development shall take place until a scheme for the drainage of surface water from the development hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme as approved shall be completed before any building hereby permitted is first occupied. Reason: To ensure that surface water run-off is satisfactorily accommodated and to comply with polices G6 (development in areas Liable to flooding) and G7 (development on Unstable Land) of the IW Unitary development plan.
19	UN19	No development shall take place until the developer has carried out adequate investigations to assess the degree of contamination of the site and to determine its water pollution potential. The methods and extent of the investigation shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before any works commences. Details of appropriate measures, to prevent pollution of ground water and surface water, including provisions for monitoring shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment as the site may be contaminated due to previous use.
20	UN20	No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of a surface water regulation system is design and implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and supported by detailed calculations. The regulation system for the site must ensure that the run off from the 1% probability storm is controlled and will restrict the outflow to that which would have occurred had the site been a greenfield. The scheme shall include a maintenance programme and establish ownership of the storage system for the future. Reason: To prevent flooding and ensure future maintenance.
21	UN21	All areas where cars are washed and filled up with fuel shall be under laid with an impervious hardstanding with dedicated drainage to foul sewer or sealed tank. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.
22	UN22	Prior to being discharged into any water course, surface water, sewer or soakaway, all surface water drainage from car parking areas and filling station shall be passed through an oil bypass inceptor designed and constructed to have a capacity compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the inceptor. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.
23	UN23	Design and construction of the underground storage tank and associated pipework shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works commencing. Reason: To prevent the discharge of hydrocarbons to ground water.
24	UN24	No soakaway shall be constructed in contaminated ground. Reason: To prevent pollution of ground water.
25	UN25	The method of piling foundations for the development shall be carried out in accordance with a scheme to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any development commencing. Reason: The site is potentially contaminated and piling could lead to the contamination of any underlying aquifer. An informative would be attached stating the following: The application may involve the storage and handling of substances contained in list 1 or 2 of the Ground Water Regulations 1998. In order to avoid any spillage on or into ground of list 1 substances or pollution of ground water by list 2 substances the application has a statutory obligation to adhere to the relevant code of practice as approved by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. These detail the safe storage, handling and use of list 1 and 2 substances if dewatering of the site and discharge of associated water is necessary during construction operations. The Environment Agency should be notified regarding the dewatering and consulted regarding the need for a discharge consent if it proposed to fill, divert or culvert a water course the applicant requires prior written approval of the agency under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991. The Agency has environmental obligations and the presumption against culverting of water course and would not normally consent to such works.

PAPER C