Appendix 3
NORWOOD HOMES (WESTGATE) LTD
PROPOSED FOODSTORE
THAXTERS OF HOLT LTD
OLD STATION WAY
HOLT
AUDIT OF
RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
ON BEHALF OF
NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL
February 2013
MWA
12 The Glenmore Centre
Jessop Court
Marconi Drive
Waterwells Business Park
Quedgeley
Gloucester
GL2 2AP
Tel:
Fax:
Email:
01452 722323
01452 881972
mark.c.wood@lineone.net
1
3.1
CONTENTS
Page
1.0
INTRODUCTION
3
2.0
SITE LOCATION AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
4
3.0
REVIEW OF THE GROCERY RETAIL MARKET
7
4.0
RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL LEISURE STUDY (2005)
8
5.0
THE ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES
13
6.0
NEED AND IMPACT
20
7.0
ASSESSMENT AGAINST PLANNING POLICY
32
8.0
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS
36
9.0
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
37
Appendix [1]
Appendix [2]
Review of grocery retail market.
Appeal decision in Worksop (February 2011).
2
3.2
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
MWA has accepted an instruction from North Norfolk District Council (the ‘Council’) to provide
retail planning advice in respect of a planning application (No. PF/12/0929) submitted by Norwood
Homes (Westgate) LLP. The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing
buildings to enable the erection of a single storey Class A1 food store extending to 1,515 sq.m.
gross together with associated car parking and servicing. The site is currently occupied by a timber
merchants (Thaxters of Holt Ltd).
1.2
Various documents have been submitted in support of the planning application. A Retail Assessment
(RA) was submitted at the time the planning application was lodged with the Council in August
2012. Following this a more detailed Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) was submitted in December
2012 prepared by Planning Perspectives on behalf of the Applicant. We have concentrated our
observations on the information contained in this later report which provides more information on
retail impact. We have where necessary referred to the original RA which in particular deals with
the sequential approach to site selection.
1.3
In addition we have also had regard to various other documents. In particular to a letter dated 20th
December 20121 prepared by GR Planning Consultancy on behalf of Musgrave Retail Partners GB
(MRP) and CT Baker Ltd (CTBL). This sets out various concerns regarding the likely impact on Holt
town centre, the conflict with national and local policies and allegedly inconsistent assumptions and
conclusions within the RIA. We have also had regard to a letter prepared by Delaval Astley dated
1st January and a report dated 12th December 2013 on behalf of Holt Independent Traders. Planning
Perspectives LLP on behalf of the Applicant submitted a response to these objections in a letter
dated 22nd January 2013.
1.4
As part of our assessment we have also been provided with information supplied by Gresham
School in respect of the availability of the Old School House and the ability of part of that site to
accommodate a food store. This generated a detailed response from the Applicant in the form of a
critique of the Gresham School proposal including information on highway and conservation area
matters. In turn Savills on behalf of Gresham School provided a further response in a letter dated 1st
February 2013. This also contained a revised ground floor plan for a supermarket and information
on delivery vehicle manoeuvring.
1.5
Following our review of the submitted information we have had discussions with Planning
Perspectives LLP and GR Planning Consultancy regarding specific information on turnover levels
within the town centre and linked shopping and other trips.
1.6
In preparing our report we have made visits to Holt, Sheringham and Fakenham in particular.
1.7
Our report addresses the following:
-
1
The degree to which the proposal complies with the sequential approach to site selection.
The impact on the vitality and viability of Holt town centre.
The degree to which it complies with relevant retail policies in the development plan and
national advice within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) published in
March 2012.
th
th
Following previous letters dated 4 and 9 September 2012.
3
3.3
2.0
SITE LOCATION AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(i)
Site location
2.1
The site extends to approximately 0.47ha and is located within the settlement boundary for Holt.
The RA notes that the site lies approximately 350 metres to the south of town centre’s primary
retail area (PRF). It notes that the primary shopping area is accessible via footpaths and via a cycle
and pedestrian A148/Hempstead Road underpass. In section 5 of the RA it is accepted that the site
occupies an out-of-town centre site.
2.2
Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defines ‘edge-of-centre’ for retail
purposes as a:
“…location that is well connected and up to 300 metres of the primary shopping area.”
2.3
The Practice Guidance2 which accompanied the former PPS4, remains extant. Paragraph 6.16 states
that at application stage where the primary shopping area is appropriately defined, the policy status
of a site will be clear. Given the distance of the application site from the PRF (equating to the PSA)
we agree that on this basis the site occupies an out-of-centre location.
2.4
However paragraph 6.19 of the Practice Guidance continues and advises that when considering a
specific proposal or application, the focus should be on the effects of the scheme as well as the site’s
location. Consideration should be given to the degree of integration and the current/future level of
accessibility. Paragraph 6.20 identifies key considerations such as:
existing retailing/other main town centre uses in the centre i.e. the level of ‘functional linkage’
and the propensity of shoppers or other users to walk between developments.
The attractiveness of linkages, i.e. whether they are of sufficient quality in terms of quality of
paving, way marking/sign posting, street furniture, lighting and perception of safety.
The way in which the scheme will operate as an integral part of the centre, for example the
provision of shared car parking, car park management, links with new or existing public
transport routes and effectiveness of overall management and promotion of the centre.
2.5
The RA suggests that the 100 space car park associated with the store will be of benefit to
customers and those also wishing to visit the town centre. It notes that the route into the town
centre is well established and is safe, well lit, convenient and attractive via the Gresham School
playing fields. Paragraph 4.40 of the RIA further asserts that the site’s location will result in
‘significant positive economic benefits’ for the town allowing the maximum number of linked trips to
be generated. This is referenced to increased footfall, ‘spin off’ expenditure and turnover. However
there is no quantitative analysis of these potential spin off- benefits in gross or net terms within the
RA or RIA.
(ii)
2.6
2
The proposed development
The planning application seeks permission for the construction of a Class A1 food store extending
to 1,515 sq.m. gross (external). The gross internal floor area is specified at 1,410 sq.m. There is
some discrepancy over the net ‘sales’ area. Paragraph 2.5 of the RIA states that the sales area will be
895 sq.m. based on the definition supplied by the Competition Commission. However Drawing No.
A1-04 accompanying the planning application specifies the retail area as being 1,030 sq.m. Moreover
in Section 7 of the Retail Assessment which accompanied the planning application the net floorspace
is identified as being 930 sq.m. based on a gross store size of 1,432 sq.m. The reason for this
discrepancy is not immediately clear.
Practice Guidance on need, impact and the sequential approach (December 2009)
4
3.4
2.7
Appendix A of the Practice Guidance accompanying PPS4 provides a Glossary of Terms. This
provides the following information:
“Gross retail floorspace
The total built floor area measured externally which is occupied exclusively by a retailer or
retailers; excluding open areas used for the storage, display or sale of goods.
Net retail sales area
A new set of definitions for retail planning has been prepared by the National Retail Planning Forum
(NRPF). The definition for all retail shops and stores other than foodstores was widely supported
during initial consultations by the NRPF, and is as follows:
The area within the walls of the shop or store to which the public has access or from which sales are made,
including display areas, fitting rooms, checkouts, the area in front of checkouts, serving counters and the
area behind used by serving staff, areas occupied by retail concessionaires, customer services areas, and
internal lobbies in which goods are displayed; but not including cafes and customer toilets.
For foodstores, an alternative definition of ‘net retail sales area’ has been put forward by the
Competition Commission, and is supported by the majority of major foodstore operators. This is as
follows:
The sales area within a building (i.e. all internal areas accessible to the customer), but excluding checkouts,
lobbies, concessions, restaurants, customer toilets and walkways behind the checkouts.
The NRPF’s definition could be applied to all shops and stores including foodstores, but differs from
the way in which the majority of major foodstore operators currently publish details of their store
sizes. The Competition Commission’s alternative definition is believed to reflect the latter more
accurately.
For retail planning purposes, the main consideration is to ensure that comparisons of floorspace and
published sales densities are on a like for like basis.
Net to gross ratio
The ratio of net retail sales area to gross retail floorspace in a stated retail location.”
2.8
In other words the net sales area is defined as only that area in which goods are displayed for sale
and excludes for example the checkouts.
2.9
We assume that the difference in the two areas specified in the RIA and on the submitted drawings
is accounted for by the use of the Competition Commission definition by Planning Perspectives and
the NRPF’s by the Applicant’s architect. Discussions with Planning Perspectives confirm that this is
the case.
2.10
In our view it is necessary to examine the planning application as submitted. In the event that
permission is granted it would in our view be appropriate to consider imposing a new condition
which limits the gross and net sales areas together with the proportion of goods devoted to the
convenience and comparison categories. This would be consistent with Part 8 of the Practice
Guidance and national advice in Circular 11/95. Paragraph 8.1 of the Practice Guidance states that
conditions should be used to proactively manage the impacts of development including limiting any
internal alterations to increase the amount of gross floorspace by specifying the maximum amount
5
3.5
which is permitted. Similarly the mix of convenience and comparison goods can be controlled.
Paragraph 8.5 states:
“In the case of retail proposals where an impact assessment has been undertaken,
based upon a particular scale of net sales floor space, and the impact and
appropriateness of the scale of development has been judged acceptable, it will
normally be appropriate to impose conditions restricting total net sales area
permitted, unless through sensitivity testing the consequences of different levels of net
sales floor space have been fully examined.”
2.11
The net sales area based on the Competition Commission definition is therefore assumed to be 895
sq.m. The RIA states at paragraph 2.6 that the store will stock and sell the full range of grocery lines
associated with similar sized modern food stores. Approximately 90% of the sales area will be
devoted to the sale of food and convenience goods with comparison goods restricted to
approximately 90 sq.m. net. The RIA states that at this level of provision, the non-food offer would
mainly comprise goods purchased on a more frequent basis as part of a regular main food shopping
trip. This would include toiletries, health and basic beauty products, soap, detergents and a limited
range of electrical items. It states that given the overall size of the store and the focus upon the sale
of food and convenience goods, it would not have the space to sell more ‘mainstream’ items such as
clothing, footwear and fashion items which are normally sold in the ‘high street’.
2.12
It also refers to discussions which have occurred between the Applicant and Council officers during
which it was accepted that the comparison goods sales area of 13% of the total would be ‘de
minimis3’ and concludes that it would not impact on the town centre’s comparison goods turnover.
We understand that the Council considers this level of comparison goods floorspace to be ancillary
to the main function of the proposed store which is the sale of food and convenience goods.
2.13
We comment on the potential trading effects in Section 5 of our report. However we generally
agree having regard to the overall size of store, the limited area devoted to comparison goods and
the predicted expenditure which is available within the catchment area, that this element of the
scheme would be unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Holt
town centre as a whole.
2.14
The trading characteristics of comparison goods floorspace was considered in an appeal in respect
of a proposed extension to a food superstore in Chesterfield (Appeal Ref:
APP/A1015/A10/2120496). In his decision letter, dated 17th August 2010, the Inspector concluded:
‘In any case it is well established, and accepted by the Council, that it is entirely normal for a
superstore to provide comparison shopping. The evidence is persuasive that the
proposed comparison floorspace would not generally act as a destination in its own
right but would be an adjunct to the main convenience floorspace. A mix of food and
non-food goods in the same premises is part of the appellant’s long established trading model in
Chesterfield and elsewhere, and the proportion of comparison goods floorspace would be
unexceptional.’
(Our emphasis)
3
i.e. of little consequence.
6
3.6
3.0
3.1
REVIEW OF THE GROCERY RETAIL MARKET
We set out at Appendix [1] a summary of the main aspects of the UK grocery sector. In summary
it is:
1.
A diverse retail sector with numerous retailers playing a role in catering for
people’s food retailing requirements.
2.
An expanding retail sector, with many retailers continuing to look to increase
or protect market share. The big four (Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons)
expanded their portfolios by increasing their sales areas by approximately
445,920 sq. m in 2009 alone, with a further 510,950 sq. m planned over the
next couple of years.
3.
A significant contributor to the UK economy in terms of investment and jobs.
The top four food retailers alone provide jobs for approximately 730,169
people. This is estimated to continue to grow with an additional 26,892 jobs
created within the stores at the top four alone over the next two years.
3.2
The scheme is predicted to deliver up to 100 employment opportunities (full and part time)
consistent with the growth in this sector of the UK’s economy. In arriving at this figure account
should also be taken of the potential job losses within existing retailers as a result of introducing
additional competition. Generally where there is sufficient expenditure or capacity to support new
floorspace then the direct impact in terms of job losses on similar types of retailer will be less.
Conversely where there is insufficient expenditure although a development might generate new jobs
within the store, these might not necessarily be net, additional jobs to the town as a whole.
3.3
The planning application does not specify a named operator and of course there is no policy
requirement that this should be done. Indeed the planning application must be assessed on the
nature of the proposed land use. Nonetheless as we make clear in Section 6 of our audit, it is
necessary to make sufficiently robust assumptions regarding the likely turnover of the store where
no operator is specifically linked to the scheme.
7
3.7
4.0
RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL LEISURE STUDY (2005)
(i) Introduction
4.1
The Council commissioned DTZ Pieda in 2004 to carry out a Retail and Leisure Study (RLS) to help
inform the review of planning policy and the production of the North Norfolk Local Development
Framework (LDF). The main objectives of this study were to provide:
—
an up to date assessment of the vitality and viability of the District’s main centres.
detailed centre and household surveys to help identify the catchments and market
shares of the District’s main centres, as well as people’s perceptions of each centre as
places to live, work, shop and visit for a variety of activities and uses.
retail and leisure capacity forecasts for the main centres up to 2016.
a review of the needs of the District’s centres in the context of their identified roles in
the retail hierarchy.
advice on the strategy for, and potential location of, new retail development in the
District, taking account of the Council’s objectives to promote sustainability.
4.2
The final report was published in May 2005 and while it is now seven years old it nonetheless is
useful in providing a context for the function and role of Holt. It is also useful in placing in context
the analysis within the RR regarding the capacity for future convenience goods floorspace and the
health of the town centre.
(ii) Holt
4.3
Section 3 of the RLS provides an overview of the main settlements within the District. In relation to
Holt the study concluded that the centre is characterised by its specialist and niche retail offer
catering for its tourist and visitor market, alongside its more traditional offer serving the day-to-day
needs of its local resident population. The main points are as follows:
Floorspace: In terms of retail floorspace it is ranked 5th within the District in terms of
service and retail units.
Multiple Outlets: The only multiple outlet within the town was identified as the
Budgens supermarket located on the edge of the town centre. It was acknowledged that
this has a good pedestrian link to Market Place. There are also a number of major
banks, building societies and estate agents.
Retail Rankings: Holt does not appear in the retail rankings. Nonetheless it was
concluded that it is one of the District’s stronger centres, due to its role as a specialist
centre catering primarily for tourists and visitors.
Convenience Offer: The food offer is anchored by the Budgens supermarket. The
study also noted that there are a large number of traditional convenience stores (such
as butchers, grocers and fishmongers. The town also benefits from the delicatessen and
general food department of the Bakers and Larners of Holt variety store, which
provides a wide variety of specialist foods. There is also a small Spar in the Market
Place.
Comparison Offer: The town has a large number of comparison outlets, which are
predominantly independently-owned, quality stores selling higher order goods, such as
antiques, crafts, gifts, high fashion and homeware. The study concluded that this good
choice of shops and stores makes the town a popular destination for visitors and
tourists.
Service Provision: All the major banks and building societies are present within the
town centre. The good selection of services means that the needs of the local
population are adequately provided for.
8
3.8
Cafés, restaurants and bars; The study concluded that the town has an underprovision of eating and drinking establishments, particularly in the restaurant sector. It
noted that there are several small cafés within the town centre, as well as a number of
public houses, which primarily serve the need of shoppers during the day. There is no
significant presence of restaurants or bars providing somewhere to go in the evening for
locals, tourists and visitors.
Leisure: The town has no other leisure provision, in terms of sports and commercial
leisure venues.
Department and Variety Stores: Bakers and Larners of Holt was acknowledged as
comprising a single variety store fronting the Market Place. It has various
interconnecting stores configured around the Market Place, and sells a variety of foods
and homewares amongst other items.
Vacancies: At the time of study there were no vacant outlets in the town centre.
Size Of Units: The majority of outlets in the town are small to medium sized. These
units suit the needs of the types of retailers currently located within the town.
4.4
With regard to the in-centre shopper surveys which were undertaken, the study noted that Holt’s
role as an important tourist and visitor destination is reflected by the fact that nearly 65% of
respondents to the centre survey lived outside the 20 minute catchment area. It concluded that 23%
of the respondents were tourists and a further 11% were simply visiting the centre.
4.5
The in-centre surveys also revealed the following:
Eating and Drinking: The centre was recognised as being one of the more popular
towns in the District to stop to eat or drink. Over half of respondents indicated that
they had (or would) visit a café or pub as part of their trip.
Mode of Travel: Over 85% of respondents travelled to Holt by car, compared to the
average of all centres in the District of 65%. This confirms that the centre is attracting a
higher proportion of car-borne trips.
Frequency of Visits: Over 27% of people visit the centre once a week or more,
compared with the all centre average of 56%. Although Holt caters for its local
residents, its strong draw of visitors and tourists is reflected by the fact that over 16%
of respondents visit once a month, whilst over 25% visit once or twice a year.
Attractions: The choice of specialist shops and the nice shopping environment were
named as the main attractions by 30% and 26% of respondents respectively.
Weaknesses: The lack of places to park within the centre was identified as a key
weakness of the town with over 67% of respondents highlighted this within the survey.
The authors of the study acknowledged that this reflected the fact that the surveys
were conducted during the holiday season when demand for parking is at its highest.
Improvements: More parking and better parking facilities were identified by nearly
55% of respondents. A further 10% of respondents suggested cheaper parking.
Other Centres – Nearly 20% of respondents stated that they do not regularly visit
any other centre for their non-food shopping needs. A proportion of respondents
visited Sheringham (7%) and Fakenham (7%), which both have different complementary
retail offers to Holt. Some 20% of respondents also visit Norwich, as it is the main
comparison goods shopping destination in the region.
4.6
In terms of the telephone household survey which was also undertaken as part of the study, the
report concluded as follows:
Food Shopping: Budgens attracts over 8% of respondents within Holt’s core zone
equating to Zone 2. However, the majority of people in this zone shop in the larger
Morrisons store in Cromer.
9
3.9
Fashion Shopping: The town was cited as the most popular destination for clothing
and footwear in the District. It attracted 8% of shopping trips from across the District,
rising to 18% from within its core zone. The reported concluded that this reflects the
relative quality of its offer and the fact that it provides an offer that is complementary to
the other North Norfolk centres.
Christmas and Special Occasion Shopping: Although the town is a less popular
destination for special occasion items, it remained the most popular shopping
destination within the District, drawing over 12% of respondents from within its core
zone.
Improvements: Most respondents (13%) identified the need for more parking spaces.
Leisure: Although relatively popular in the local area, Holt was judged to be a less
attractive leisure destination throughout the rest of the District for the purposes of
evenings out to eat/drink. This is due to the lack of quality restaurants and bars the
study concluded.
4.7
The consultants concluded that Holt is one of the most attractive and popular centres in the
District. The Georgian architecture and choice of quality specialist independent stores draw
shoppers and visitors from beyond North Norfolk. It also noted that there is also a strong and
affluent second home market in the immediate area, and the presence of Gresham’s public school in
the town adds to its overall attraction.
4.8
The study also concluded that the town primarily functions as a niche centre, serving a strong
tourist market and providing a complementary offer to the other North Norfolk centres. It has a
larger number and mix of specialist shops, selling a wide range of goods including antiques, crafts,
gifts, boutique and homeware items. Over 30% of respondents to the street survey identified the
centre’s retail offer as its main attraction. The findings of the household survey also indicated that
Holt is achieving the highest market share (8%) for fashion shopping than any of the District’s other
main centres.
4.9
With regard to he centre’s convenience offer, the consultants concluded that it is more limited. It
comprises a Budgens, Spar and range of smaller convenience and food stores. As a result, a high
proportion of its local population tend to shop at the Morrisons in Cromer for their main ‘bulk’
food purchases. They concluded therefore that there may be a market opportunity for a mediumsized foodstore in Holt (such as a Tesco Express or Metro).
4.10
With regard to the ability to expand the town’s shopping area, the study noted that unlike most of
the District’s coastal towns, Holt attracted more year-round visits and is therefore less vulnerable
to seasonal fluctuations in holiday patterns. The consultants decided that it was vitally important
that Holt’s environment, character and choice of stores is maintained and enhanced in order to
strengthen its future attraction and popularity. Limited physical capacity to extend the shopping area
as the town centre was acknowledged given the designated Conservation Area and many of its
commercial facilities are in listed buildings. The consultants therefore advised that retail
development should be restricted in Holt in order to protect its environment and character.
However it noted that this could also lead to increased pressures for out-of-centre retailing.
4.11
With regard to convenience goods trading levels, the study noted that the only centres and/or
stores that required a significant downward adjustment in their market share and trade draw levels
were Holt and Wells-next-the-Sea. According to the market research, these centres appear to be
achieving convenience goods turnover levels significantly in excess of what would normally be
expected for the relative size and quality of their food and convenience offer. This may reflect the
fact that stores and shops in these two popular holiday destinations could be ‘overtrading’ at the
base year, although this is difficult to verify without more detailed sales data for individual stores.
10
3.10
According to Table 4.7 of the report the convenience goods sales density for Holt town centre as a
whole was adjusted downwards from £13,046 sq.m. (2004 prices) to £7,547 sq.m.
4.12
DTZ provided three forecasts or ‘scenarios’ for convenience goods. These were as follows:
Scenarios 1 and 1(a): ‘Baseline’: These assumed that market shares remain constant over
the forecast period, from 2004 to 2016. This was based on the County Council’s ‘policy-led’
population projections for Norfolk District and an expenditure growth rate of +0.3% per annum.
The only difference between the two scenarios is that Scenario 1 assumed a turnover productivity
(or ‘efficiency’) growth rate of +0.1% per annum for existing businesses and floorspace, in
accordance with the advice then set out in PPS6, whereas Scenario 1(a) did not assume an
‘efficiency’ growth rate. This enabled DTZ to test the sensitivity of the overall capacity forecasts to
changes in these key inputs.
Scenarios 2 and 2(a): ‘Higher Spend Growth’: These also assumed constant market shares
and the County Council’s ‘policy-led’ population projections. However, this scenario tested a higher
expenditure growth rate of +0.9% per annum and Scenario 2 therefore assumed a slightly higher
turnover ‘efficiency’ growth rate of approximately +0.3% per annum. For Scenario 2(a) the
hypothetical impact of no ‘efficiency’ growth on the capacity forecasts was adopted.
Scenarios 3 and 3(a): ‘High Spend and Population Growth’ – This differed from
Scenarios 1 and 2 in that DTZ tested higher population growth rates based on ONS 2003
projections, which were based on an extrapolation of past trends. As with Scenario 2, DTZ
assumed a higher growth in average spend of +0.9% per annum and tested the impact on capacity
forecasts with (Scenario 3) and without (Scenario 3a) an annual ‘efficiency’ growth rate of +0.3%.
4.13
Table 4.8 of the study provided an indication of the residual convenience goods expenditure under
the various forecasts. This is set out below.
4.14
The consultants concluded (paragraph 7.17) that overall in respect of convenience goods there was
limited forecast capacity in the District up to 2016. This is mainly explained by the fact that:
There is minimal forecast growth in average spend levels (+0.3%/0.9% per annum) up to
2016.
There is a significant quantum of new food and convenience goods space in the
11
3.11
planning pipeline, either with permission or proposed.4
There is more limited potential to increase the current estimated ‘retention level’ for
convenience goods retailing.
There is also limited evidence to indicate that the District’s centres and stores are
‘over-trading’ at the base year. Based on DTZ’s research there is therefore no evidence
of additional ‘pent-up’ capacity at 2004.
4.15
The consultants concluded that there was significant leakage of expenditure outside of the district
particularly in relation to comparison goods. They concluded that there was a significant ‘leakage’ of
shoppers and spend to centres and stores outside the ‘core’ area. In particular, the three larger
centres of Norwich, Great Yarmouth and Kings Lynn achieved an ‘adjusted’ market share for
comparison goods retailing of 47% within the ‘core’ area, although this fell to under 19% for
convenience goods spend. DTZ also benchmarked the District’s market share and retention levels
with the estimates set out in the North Norfolk District-Wide Shopping Study (revised 1995). Although
it was accepted that the methodologies are not directly comparable, the results appeared to show
that the District’s retention level of convenience goods shopping had fallen from approximately 78%
in 1995.
4.16
Nevertheless, the survey results also appear to show for convenience goods retailing that the
businesses in some centres are performing strongly. This is particularly the case in the holiday
destinations of Holt and Wells. This reflects the fact that the relative scale and quality of the
convenience and foodstore offer in these centres is lower than for the other main centres in the
District, but that both centres are attracting significant tourist and visitor spend, particularly during
the peak holiday periods. On this basis, DTZ therefore advised the Council that they will need to
consider the issue of over-trading for specific planning applications based on the relative merits of
each proposal, benchmarked against the performance, vitality and viability of the existing centres.
4.17
In setting out the summary of the key conclusions of the study it should of course be remembered
that it was intended to provide guidance at a District wide level on the capacity for further
floorspace and was not intended as a basis for assessing the potential impact of individual proposals.
4
This explains why the consultants concluded that there was no quantitative need for additional convenience goods
floorspace i.e. because of committed and proposed developments. In reality the capacity estimates predicted a need in
monetary terms of around £13.2m by 2011 and £23.2m by 2016 under Scenario 2(a).
12
3.12
5.0
THE ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES
(i) Introduction
5.1
Section 5 of the Retail Assessment which accompanied the planning application examines whether
there are any sequentially preferable sites which are suitable and available within the town centre. In
terms of the scope of the assessment we agree that only Holt should be examined. This is
consistent with the High Court Judgement in the case of Regina v Braintree District Council Ex Parte
Clacton Common Development Limited. In that case George Bartlett QC concluded that it was not
necessary to look at potential alternative sites in every centre that fell within the catchment area of
the proposed development. It had been contended that potential alternative sites in every centre
within the proposed development catchment area should be considered. However, in reaching his
judgement Mr Bartlett QC stated that a site examined some distance from the application site
would effectively have its own catchment area which may only include a part of the original
catchment area of the application site. In any event, the catchment of the proposed development
relates primarily to Holt although the telephone household survey extends across a number of
zones.
5.2
The RA states that prior to the submission of the application an agreement was reached with the
Council on the parameters which should be adopted. A key requirement was to ensure that a site
was of sufficient size to accommodate a food store capable of meeting some of the town’s main
food shopping needs. If the site was too small the amount of floorspace within a new store would
perpetuate unsustainable food shopping patterns, the RA concludes.
5.3
On this basis a minimum floor area of 1,400 sq.m. was stated to be required. This would provide for
little comparison goods floorspace. A minimum of between 80-90 car parking spaces was also
judged to be necessary which when combined with servicing arrangements a site of 1.2 acres
(c0.49ha) was determined as being appropriate. We agree that a store of this size when coupled
with on-site car parking would broadly require a site of this size assuming that split level trading was
not considered appropriate for a store of the planned size.
5.4
In this regard it is relevant to note the following:
1. Flexibility and Realism
5.5
It is necessary to assess sequentially preferable sites which are suitable and available to
accommodate the type and scale of development proposed. In this regard the Supreme Court in
Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13, held that in defining the term ‘suitable’
reference should be made to the design of the developer’s proposal subject to the demonstration of
flexibility and realism. It was held that the issue of suitability must be directed at the developer’s
proposals and not to some alternative scheme which might be suggested by the Local Planning
Authority. In other words any assessment must reflect the fact that the Applicant operates in the
real world and is proposing a scheme which addresses the qualitative deficiencies within the existing
store.
5.6
At paragraph 21 of the judgment Lord Reed stated:
“A provision in the development plan which requires an assessment of whether a site is
‘suitable’ for a particular purpose calls for judgment in its application.”
5.7
In paragraph 28 Lord Reed acknowledged that:
I said earlier that it was necessary to qualify the statement that the Director and the
respondents proceeded, and were correct to proceed, on the basis that “suitable”
13
3.13
meant “suitable for the development proposed by the applicant”. As paragraph 13 of
NPPG 8 makes clear, the application of the sequential approach requires flexibility and
realism from developers and retailers as well as planning authorities5. The need for
flexibility and realism reflects an inbuilt difficulty about the sequential approach. On
the one hand, the policy could be defeated by developers’ and retailers’ taking an
inflexible approach to their requirements. On the other hand, as Sedley J remarked in
R v Teesside Development Corporation, Ex p William Morrison Supermarket plc and Redcar
and Cleveland BC [1998] JPL 23, 43, to refuse an out-of-centre planning consent on the
ground that an admittedly smaller site is available within the town centre may be to
take an entirely inappropriate business decision on behalf of the developer. The
guidance seeks to address this problem. It advises that developers and retailers should
have regard to the circumstances of the particular town centre when preparing their
proposals, as regards the format, design and scale of the development. As part of such
an approach, they are expected to consider the scope for accommodating the
proposed development in a different built form, and where appropriate adjusting or
sub-dividing large proposals, in order that their scale may fit better with existing
development in the town centre.”
5.8
The key part of the judgment at paragraph 29 is that in assessing the suitability of an alternative site
it is necessary to proceed on the basis of assessing whether the site is suitable for the proposed
development and not whether the proposed development can be altered or materially reduced so
that it can be made to fit an alternative site.
5.9
This is confirmed by Lord Hope who at paragraph 38 stated that the assessment must be directed
at what a developer was proposing and not to some other proposal for which the planning authority
might seek to substitute for which is something less than that sought by the developer. This is
because developers operate in the real world based on their assessment of market conditions.
2. Status of individual sites
5.10
Paragraph 24 of the Framework states:
“Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main
town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-todate Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in
town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available
should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre
proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town
centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues
such as format and scale.”
5.11
In respect of examining individual sites, under circumstances where no in or edge of centre sites
exist, the Secretary of State’s decision in Worksop dated February 2011 is relevant. This is attached
as Appendix [2]. It was stated in paragraph 10.22 of the Decision Letter that while there is a
strong preference for in and edge of centre sites, where these are not available, the policy objective
is best met by out-of-centre sites which contribute to the objectives set out in paragraph 6.8 of the
Practice Guidance. This states in the absence of any in-centre sites, that preference should be given to
edge of centre sites well served by a choice of means of transport, which are close to a centre and
which have a higher likelihood of forming links with a centre.
5.12
Therefore where a site is identified which is accepted as being of the same ‘status’ in sequential
terms it is necessary to examine whether it is better connected to the town centre.
5
Although reference is made to Scottish guidance, the advice within the NPPF and the Practice Guidance is similar in
approach.
14
3.14
5.13
Paragraph 6.37 of the Practice Guidance defines three components in assessing alternative sites:
• Availability – whether sites are available now or are likely to become available for development
within a reasonable period of time (determined on the merits of a particular case, having regard to
inter alia, the urgency of the need). Where sites become available unexpectedly after receipt of an
application, the local planning authority should take this into account in their assessment of the
application.
• Suitability – with due regard to the requirements to demonstrate flexibility, whether sites are
suitable to accommodate the need or demand which the proposal is intended to meet. In this
regard the judgment in Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UHSC 136, referred to above
makes clear that the issue of suitability should be based on the proposals put forward by a particular
applicant/developer and not to some alternative scheme which might be suggested by the Local
Planning Authority. In other words an assessment of alternative sites must have regard to the
format, scale and design of a proposal subject to ensuring that it had been applied flexibly and with a
degree of realism.
• Viability – whether there is a reasonable prospect that development will occur on the site at a
particular point in time. Again the importance of demonstrating the viability of alternatives depends
in part on the nature of the need and the timescale over which it is to be met.
5.14
However paragraph 24 of the Framework does not explicitly refer to ‘viability’. It could nonetheless
be potentially construed as falling within an assessment of a site’s suitability.
5.15
Paragraph 6.42 of the Practice Guidance is relevant. This advises that:
“When judging the suitability of a site it is necessary to have a proper understanding of
scale and form of development needed, and what aspect(s) of the need are intended to
be met by the site(s). It is not necessary to demonstrate that a potential town centre
or edge of centre site can accommodate precisely the scale and form of development
being proposed, but rather to consider what contribution more central sites are able to
make, either individually or collectively, to meeting the same requirements.”
5.16
This is consistent with the advice within the Framework which requires the need to assess schemes
having regard to the degree of flexibility in respect of format and scale. In this regard we accept that
a new food store has to be ‘fit for purpose’ and be able to provide an ability for shoppers to meet
both their main food and top-up shopping needs. The ability to provide a coffee shop while perhaps
desirable is not essential to meeting this objective.
(ii) Sites examined
(a) Town Centre sites
5.17
The RA examines various town centre sites as follows:
1. Albert Street car park
5.18
The site is owned by the Council. We agree with the comments in the RA that the site is in
beneficial use and indeed forms one of the town’s primary parking areas. In view of the conclusions
of the RCLS in 2005 regarding the importance of maintaining town centre car parking we do not
believe that the site is suitable for the development of a medium sized food store. Any development
6
A judgment of the Supreme Court. We accept that it cannot be given full weight because it relates to Scotland where
there is different retail policy.
15
3.15
would have to ensure that replacement car parking was provided as well as meeting the operational
needs of the store. A twin deck or underground parking system might be feasible but this would
almost certainly entail significant cost and design issues. Paragraph 2.9.13 of the Core Strategy
notes:
“Holt has established a reputation as a niche market shopping centre and jobs in
retailing constitute a significant proportion of total employment. A range of shops
(including a small supermarket) and other services are available in the town centre
which acts as both a local service centre and a visitor destination. The success of the
town centre results in acute parking problems with both the lack of sufficient spaces
and the location of existing car parks creating town centre congestion and conflict with
pedestrians. This issue should be addressed in advance of any significant increase in
retail development
(Our emphasis)
5.19
In addition we are not aware that the Council has judged the site surplus to requirements and it is
therefore also unavailable.
2. Land off Station Road
5.20
The site extends to 1.25 acres (0.51ha) and therefore falls within the parameters set by the
Applicant in assessing potential suitability. We note however that it contains a number of residential
properties and The Lawns Wine Bar and Hotel. It is also located within the town’s conservation
area.
5.21
While securing agreement with all the land owners might be possible we agree that bringing this site
forward would be difficult and might require the use of compulsory purchase powers by the
Council. In addition it would lead to the loss of an existing hotel which would potentially diminish
the range of accommodation for both tourists and business people.
3. White Lion Car Park
5.22
We agree that this site at 0.5 acres (0.20ha) is too small to accommodate the scale of food store
proposed. It is therefore unsuitable.
(b) Edge of centre sites
5.23
The RA examines 6 potential sites as follows:
1. Land opposite Holt Primary School, Norwich Road
5.24
The RA notes that this is an area of gardens and open space and acknowledges that it has not been
possible to identify the full ownership of the land. It notes that the site lies within the Conservation
Area and concludes that it is not available.
5.25
We note that there does not appear to be any direct access into the site from Norwich Road which
complicates the ability of any developer to produce an acceptable scheme. While an access might be
capable of being delivered we conclude that the site’s existing use at least in part as open space,
would require adequate provision to be made elsewhere to compensate for its loss.
2. Playing field opposite A148 roundabout
5.26
The site comprises a football pitch which is used by Holt Primary school for recreational uses.
16
3.16
Although the site is large enough to accommodate a medium sized foodstore we note that
paragraph 73 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) emphasises the need for all sections
of the community to have access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and
recreation. These facilities can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of
communities.
5.27
Paragraph 74 of the NPPF further states that existing open space, sports and recreational buildings
and land including playing fields, should not be built on unless:
An assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings
or land to be surplus to requirements; or
The loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or
better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or
The development is for alternative sports and recreation provision, the needs of which
clearly outweigh the loss.
5.28
In our opinion any scheme leading to the loss of a valued sports pitch should be resisted. We
therefore agree that it is not suitable and not available.
3. Garage and car showrooms, Cromer Road
5.29
We have noted the comments in the RA and agree that the site is too small to accommodate the
scale of development proposed on the application site. More significantly it is in beneficial use
comprising a car dealership, the town’s only petrol filling station and a small Mace store. It is
therefore not available.
4. Land next to Gresham School
5.30
This site has been subject to much discussion and examination by both the Applicant and the
owner’s of the site. In a letter dated 12th December 2012 Savills (L&P) ltd on behalf of Gresham’s
School provided information on their client’s preparation of a new masterplan covering all of the
school’s landholdings in Holt. The masterplan is intended to provide a ‘vehicle’ for considering a
range of new developments on sites within the town in order to raise funds for a new preparatory
school and a new sixth form centre.
5.31
Reference is made to the Old School House site which is judged unfit for purpose for the modern
day educational needs of pre-preparatory school age children. In conjunction with Endurance
Estates the site has been identified as being suitable for the development of a supermarket
extending to 1,393 sq.m. gross (938 sq.m. net). The submission is supported by plans prepared by
Cowper Griffiths (architects). This shows a food store at ground level with eight residential
apartments above. It is stated that a planning application and appropriate listed and Conservation
Area consent, applications, will be ready for submission in Spring 2013.
5.32
Savills argue that the site is sequentially preferable, is available and would be suitable for the
construction of a medium sized food store.
5.33
In response the Applicants have submitted a detailed critique of the information supplied by Savills
and Cowper Griffiths. This consists of a written report along with a series of appendices. The
critique raises various matters including an assessment of the location of the Old School House site
relative to the town’s primary shopping area. We agree that the site does not constitute an ‘in’
17
3.17
centre site for the purposes of the NPPF or the Practice Guidance. It does however constitute an
‘edge of centre’ site which is therefore sequentially preferable to Thaxters Yard7.
5.34
In addition even if it is not considered to be edge of centre, the Secretary of State’s decision in
Worksop dated February 2011 is relevant. This is attached as Appendix [2]. It is stated in
paragraph 10.22 of the DL that while there is a strong preference for in and edge of centre sites,
where these are not available, the policy objective is best met by out-of-centre sites which
contribute to the objectives set out in paragraph 6.8 of the Practice Guidance. This states that
preference should be given to out of centre sites well served by a choice of means of transport,
which are close to a centre and which have a higher likelihood of forming links with a centre.
5.35
It seems to us that the school’s claim that the site will become available for development (certainly
within the next 5 years which is normally adopted as the most appropriate period for any
assessment), should be accepted at face value. Of course this does not mean that the site is suitable
in land use, heritage, highway, open space and urban design terms. Given its relative proximity to
the primary shopping area it is clearly preferable but it we believe it is a matter for the Council to
determine having regard to whether it is suitable for the construction of a medium sized food store
given the numerous matters which would need to be addressed. On the basis of the information
submitted on behalf of the school we do not believe that these issues have been satisfactorily
resolved. The most recent information submitted by Savills provides further information on a
possible internal store layout and the tracking of delivery vehicles and clearly these represents an
attempt to resolve the significant constraints relating to the development of the site. Nonetheless
we have not been involved in pre-application discussions and leave the ultimate decision on the
site’s suitability to the Council to determine. We do note however that the initial layout provides
for a potential sub-optimal trading space which is not regular in shape and involves an elongated and
potentially inconvenient customer car parking area. This reflects the irregular shape of the site. The
most recent plan provides for a more regular trading area but the relationship to the car parking
remains relatively poor.
5. Playing fields associated with Gresham School
5.36
The playing fields have not been specifically identified by the school as being surplus to requirements
and given national advice and the Council’s adopted Core Strategy specifically policy CT1, we do
not believe any of the school’s playing fields are suitable for the development of a food store.
6. Land opposite Hempstead Road (fronting A148)
5.37
We do not believe that this site is sequentially preferable because it comprises an out of centre
location which does not appear to have better links to the town centre.
(iii) Overall conclusions
5.38
7
The Practice Guidance confirms that compliance with the sequential approach to site selection is an
important aspect of retail policy8. It makes clear that the onus is upon the Applicant to demonstrate
compliance. However it also advises that if a LPA proposes to refuse an application involving town
centre uses on the basis of the sequential approach, it should be on the basis that it considers there
is, or maybe, a reasonable prospect of a sequentially preferable opportunity coming forward which
is likely to be capable of meeting the same requirements as the application is intended to meet. If a
LPA suggest alternative, more central sites as being sequentially preferable, they should be satisfied
that the alternatives are genuinely likely to be suitable for the scale/form of town centre uses
st
Savills letter dated 1 February 2013 suggests that Thaxters Yard is an edge of centre site. However the Old Scholl
House site is considered to be closer to the town centre.
8
This is also confirmed by paragraph 27 of the NPPF.
18
3.18
proposed, having regard to their planning policies, their stated intentions for the site, and any other
planning conservation or environmental constraints affecting the site.
5.39
As paragraph 6.49 of the Practice Guidance recognises where alternative sites are being actively
promoted for new development by a developer/retailer, this is a reasonable indicator that the
location is viable. Where other sites are not being brought forward for development, it is may be
relevant to consider their progress and whether they are being used as a means of ‘blocking’ new
development in less central locations. In the case of the Old School House site, while some preapplication discussions have occurred we are unable on the basis of the submitted information, to
conclude that an appropriate scheme for a food store, car parking and residential development can
be delivered. Nonetheless we have taken at face value the comments by Savills that the site will
become available within a reasonable period of time and agree that it is sequentially preferable to
Thaxters Yard.
5.40
Paragraph 6.2 of the Practice Guidance is highly relevant and states:
“The sequential approach is intended to achieve two important policy objectives:
• First, the assumption underpinning the policy is that town centre sites (or failing that
well connected edge of centre sites) are likely to be the most readily accessible locations
by alternative means of transport and will be centrally placed to the catchments
established centres serve, thereby reducing the need to travel.
• The second, related objective is to seek to accommodate main town centre uses in
locations where customers are able to undertake linked trips in order to provide for
improved consumer choice and competition. In this way, the benefits of the new
development will serve to reinforce the vitality and viability of the existing centre.”
5.41
We believe that only the Old School House offers the potential to deliver a food store of broadly
similar size to that proposed by the Applicant. However we do not believe that the school has
demonstrated that the site is suitable in land use, highway, heritage and design terms to
accommodate a food store of between 1,300-1,400 sq.m. gross. Ultimately it is a matter for the
Council to consider given the pre-application discussions which have occurred and having regard to
its development management function.
19
3.19
6.0
NEED AND IMPACT
(i) Introduction
6.1
The RIA submitted in December 2012 deals with the potential trading effects and we have relied
upon information in this document in making our assessment. The RIA also provides information on
the capacity or quantitative need for additional convenience goods floorspace although we note that
there is no requirement within the NPPF for the Applicant to demonstrate a need for the proposed
development notwithstanding the requirements of Policy EC 5 of the Core Strategy.
(ii) The need for Impact Assessment
6.2
The Applicant accepts that there is a need for an Impact Assessment. The NPPF requires that when
assessing applications for retail development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance
with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the
development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set
threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m).This should include assessment of
the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and
private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the
proposal; and
the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local
consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five
years from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full
impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up
to ten years from the time the application is made.
6.2
Policy EC 5 of the Core Strategy states that schemes proposing in excess of 750 sq.m. net of retail
floorspace outside of a Primary Shopping Area of a Large or Small town should be subject to an
assessment of its impact on the vitality and viability of existing centres. In our view this policy
provides a locally set threshold which accords with paragraph 26 of the NPPF.
(iii) Qualitative need
6.4
The Practice Guidance refers to qualitative need at paragraph 3.15. Six factors are normally identified,
although others can often be considered relevant:
Deficiencies or ‘gaps’ in existing provision – The RIA is supported by a
telephone household survey commissioned from NEMS Market research. This
included a survey of 676 households in Holt (Sector 2), Sheringham (Sector
1), Cromer (Sector 3) and Melton Constable (Sector 4). The survey
information was used to model convenience goods expenditure flows. In
terms of existing provision Holt town centre attracted 21.7% of bulky i.e.
main food, shopping trips from Sector 2. This indicates that there is a
substantial loss of expenditure from the town and sector as a whole, to other
towns and food stores further afield. It is indicative of the relative underprovision of larger foodstores to meet main food shopping needs and suggests
that there is a certain deficiency in existing provision. The RIA notes that the
town is under-provided with convenience goods outlets relative to the
national average of all centres surveyed by GOAD9. Other than the extension
9
A company which regularly surveys existing centres and assesses the number and quantity of convenience,
comparison, service and vacant floorspace within each.
20
3.20
to the Budgens store there has been in relative terms little
expansion/improvement of the town’s food and convenience goods retail
offer.
Choice and competition – the provision of a modern supermarket in Holt will
provide much improved local choice for the resident population that will help
to increase competition between the existing retail destinations and in
particular with the larger out of centre food stores in the centres of
Fakenham, Sheringham and Cromer.
Overtrading and congestion- Overtrading is often regarded as an indicator of
qualitative need as it is demonstrated by overcrowding/congestion. It is also
an indicator of quantitative need. The government recognises that
overcrowding/congestion indicates the existing provision is unable to cope
adequately with consumer demand. In other words ‘overtrading’ occurs when
there is an imbalance between demand (i.e. available spend) and supply (i.e.
existing floorspace capacity). The RIA provides information on the relative
turnover of Budgens in the town centre relative to ‘company’ averages. The
analysis suggests that in 2012 the Budgens store achieved a turnover of £9.2m
(2010 prices). This is compared with a notional company average turnover for
the store of £5.8m at the same date. In this regard GR Planning Consultancy
on behalf of Budgens has queried the accuracy of this turnover estimate and
we comment on this matter further in this section. The data derived from the
findings of the household survey will often over-state the use of larger stores
and understate the use of the smaller stores. Indeed some of the
representations on the planning application have mentioned this effect. This
will particularly be the case as in Holt where there is only one main
supermarket. Consequently there are inevitable limitations in the assumptions
which are used for calculating under-trading and over-trading; in addition to
the limitations of data in relation to turnover estimates derived from the
household survey. We also note the problems inherent in estimates of sales
floorspace and a lack of data on average trading levels which apply to some
grocery retailers and acknowledge that the last publicly available information
on Budgens stores as set out in the Retail Rankings, was in 2005/06. The
Practice Guidance also notes:
“…the term overtrading is still infrequently misunderstood, and where
existing services are claimed to be overtrading this should be backed up
by corroborating evidence such as overcrowding and congestion rather
than simply by comparison with a retailer’s company average.”
In the case of the RIA there is no corroborative information on overcrowding
and congestion within the store.
Reducing travel distances – The reliance on stores in other more distant
centres generates high travel distances by the private car and public transport,
whilst also eliminating access on foot. We believe that the scheme has
significant potential to reduce both the number and length of journeys by car
for main food shopping in particular.
Location specific needs – Such as the provision of retail facilities, especially for
convenience goods local to the location of available expenditure. In this case
the need is locationally specific to Holt.
21
3.21
Quality of existing provision – The quality of existing provision is relatively
limited particularly for main food shopping although there is no doubt that the
Budgens store provides an attractive and convenient shopping destination.
This is supported by a range of predominantly independent and often
specialist food retailers.
6.5
We believe therefore that there is an identified qualitative need for the proposed store within the
catchment area to assist in retaining some of the expenditure that is currently leaking to other
stores further away (which brings with it a consequential need to travel further, often by car), whilst
at the same time providing improved choice to residents in the area. The proposed store offers a
destination for shoppers within the catchment to do more than top-up shopping and would be
considered as suitable for their weekly shop.
(iv) Quantitative need and impact
(a) Introduction
6.6
Policy EC5 together with paragraph 27 of the NPPF recognise that the potential impact of out-ofcentre retail developments is one of the main considerations. As paragraph 5.8 of the Practice
Guidance states this is the key impact policy test. Paragraph 5.5 of the Practice Guidance also stresses
that it is a matter for the decision maker to judge what constitutes a ‘significant’ adverse impact.
Annex D of the Practice Guidance relates to ‘Quantifying impact’. Figure D1 sets out the steps
required to quantify the impact. These are as follows:
Step 1: Establish base/design years, and determine what is being assessed
Step 2: Examine ‘no development’ scenario i.e. what will happen if the development does not take
place?
Step 3: Assess turnover and trade draw i.e. what turnover will the development generate and
where will it come from?
Step 4: Assess impact on existing centres and facilities i.e. quantify the effects of trade diversion
Step 5: Consider the consequences of impact, including quantitative and qualitative issues
6.7
The guidance states that it will appropriate in assessing the impact of a planned development to
examine a ‘no development’ scenario.
6.8
Paragraph D.22 of the Practice Guidance states:
“In every case, the objective should be to set out clearly the judgements reached about the
total turnover and proportion of the proposals turnover drawn from different parts of the
catchment area, together with assumptions about ‘inflow’ from beyond the survey area. This
provides an important first step, as a means of judging, on a zone by zone basis, the likely
changes in shopping patterns arising and the centres from which the proposal is likely to
divert its trade.”
22
3.22
(b)
The adopted approach
6.9
In our opinion and notwithstanding the Applicant’s position on this matter, the initial RA was
deficient in the approach adopted to assessing impact. It did not provide any survey or quantitative
information and while the Practice Guidance advises that any assessment should be proportionate to
the scale and type of development proposed10, in the case of Holt, it was in our view necessary to
provide a more robust assessment.
6.10
Such an assessment is provided within the RIA submitted in December 2012 although we appreciate
that certain aspects have generated criticism from town centre traders and others. Nonetheless in
terms of the approach advocated in the Practice Guidance it does generally follow best practice11 in
that:
The primary catchment area of the town based primarily on Sector 2 is
appropriately defined.
Three other sectors are included to provide an appropriate context for main
food and top-up shopping patterns.
For each sector population and expenditure estimates have been obtained
from Experian Business Strategies (EBS); (a reputable and frequently used
source of demographic and economic data).
A telephone household survey provides a base for estimating existing and
future expenditure flows to centres and stores. This is not infallible and
judgement has to be applied but it nonetheless provides a basis for estimating
expenditure flows.
An assessment of the food retail offer in competing centres is provided to
assess the level and nature of competition.
(c) Population and expenditure
6.11
We have reviewed the population and expenditure information which underpins the RIA. The
population for each zone is based on projections provided by EBS. This is an appropriate source of
such information. As we understand it the population projections also take into account the planned
housing distribution as set out within the Core Strategy and we assume therefore that the
projections which are normally provided by EBS have been adapted to reflect this factor.
6.12
The base year expenditure estimates are also supplied by EBS. Special forms of trading have been
deducted and growth rates are applied having regard to information within Retail Planner Briefing
Note 10.1 (September 2012). This predicts only limited growth in convenience goods expenditure
between 2012-14. Between 2015 and 2019 the annual rate of growth is predicted to be 0.6.
(d) Main food and top-up expenditure patterns
6.13
In terms of main food shopping patterns the telephone household survey revealed the following:
Only 24.7% of all main food shopping trips are retained in Holt and other
local shops/stores in Sector 2. Consequently 75.3% of all main food shopping
10
This is also confirmed by paragraph 193 of the NPPF which states that information should be supplied which is
proportionate to the nature and scale of development proposed.
11
We do not believe it follows best practice in so far as it does not model the likely impact of the Tesco store planned in
Sheringham albeit that this development is predicted to have only a modest impact on Holt. Nonetheless this
consideration along with the use of a potentially higher design year turnover and a lower assumed turnover for Budgens
in the town centre, lead to a potentially greater level of impact than that predicted in the RIA.
23
3.23
trips form Sector 2 is lost from the area. In this context we note the
comments of one objector who refers to the costs of petrol as the main
reason for such a large loss of main food shopping expenditure. This is no
doubt a factor but the assessment is not based upon retaining all main food
shopping expenditure within sector 2 only increasing the percentage as a
proportion of the total. Clearly some expenditure possibly related to the
price of petrol offered in competing centres will remain a factor.
Cromer’s town centre and out-of-centre store retain a significantly higher
proportion (82.6%) of all main food shopping trips in Sector 3; equivalent to a
leakage of 17.3%.
Main food shopping trips from Holt (Sector 2) are to stores located some
distance away that are clearly not as convenient or easily accessible as Holt.
For example 42.1% of trips are to stores in Fakenham (principally Tesco),
which is located some 13-15 miles from Holt. In addition 17.8% of trips are to
the out-of-centre Morrisons and Co-op stores in Cromer, approximately 10
miles from Holt. Approximately 6% are to Aylsham.
The majority of trips in Sector 2 are by car (91%).
6.14
With regard top-up shopping, Holt retains a significantly higher proportion of such trips with
Budgens predicted to achieve approximately 37% of such trips from within Sector 2. Other shops
and stores in the town centre retained just under 23% of the expenditure.
(e) Turnover of the proposed store
6.15
No operator is currently associated with the proposed development. The RIA therefore provides
two alternative turnovers for the store. The first is based upon occupation by a discount grocery
retailer and secondly by a ‘mainstream’, non-discount operator. Based on an assumed convenience
goods floorspace of 806 sq.m. the RIA predicts a convenience goods turnover of between £3.24m
and £9.72m in 2017. This is based on an assumed sales density of between £4,024 and £12,072
sq.m12.
6.16
In terms of comparison goods the turnover is estimated to be £0.55m in either case.
6.17
Although the assumed convenience goods sales density of c.£12,000 sq.m. is relatively high
paragraphs D.11 and D.12 of the Practice Guidance are relevant. These state:
“Where there are firm proposals for the development of an allocated site in a
development plan document, or in the case of site-specific proposals which are backed
by a known operator, the anticipated turnover and characteristics of the proposed
development can be estimated by reference to comparable schemes, and/ or the
operator’s benchmark turnover (having regard to local circumstances).
For speculative developments or site allocations where the form of development is
unclear, it may be possible to judge an indication of the likely turnover, having
regard to the range and type of retailers envisaged. However, such estimates should
be treated with caution if firm proposals are not in place or occupiers are not
known. In such cases, a reasonable range of possible consequences of different
forms of development on a proposed site should be considered. This means that it
will be necessary to consider the turnover of a range of potential occupiers which
may be attracted to the site in light of quantitative capacity and other qualitative
12
Assessed by the Applicant to be a ‘worse case’.
24
3.24
need considerations.”
6.18
The RIA suggests that there is significant expenditure capacity within sector 2 due largely to the
significant amount of potential trade which is lost to the town. In the event that the store were to
be occupied by Tesco or Asda we believe that the convenience goods sales density based on
published information by Mintel in The Retail Rankings (2011) and from retail studies elsewhere,
could be around £14,000 sq.m. or greater which would generate a convenience goods turnover of
approximately £11.3m. In view of the concerns raised by Third Parties to the scheme we believe
that it is appropriate to assess the impact based on this higher estimate although we appreciate it is
not necessarily a figure which is accepted by the Applicant and we acknowledge that the store could
be operated by a discount retailer whose impact on the town centre would be significantly less and
that for a main stream grocery retailer the store would be relatively modest in size13. Nonetheless
given the fact that the retail and leisure study in 2005 applied a £12,000 sq.m. sales density for new
supermarkets and food stores planned in Sheringham and Fakenham14 at that time (at 2004 prices),
we believe that a higher sales density should be assumed in this particular case. As paragraph D.13
of the Practice Guidance makes clear
“In particular, new foodstores and retail warehouse type developments may attract a
range of potential operators, and the impact assessment needs to consider the full
range of turnovers and implications of alternative operators, for example on the
prospect of closure of facilities within existing centres.”
(f) Impact
6.19
The RIA provides information on the amount of expenditure which will be drawn from the town
centre and from other centres and stores. It estimates that the main “impact” of the proposed
store will be to ‘claw-back’ an estimated £4.58m of convenience goods expenditure that is currently
leaking out of Holt’s catchment (Sector 2). The RIA estimates that in 2012 the town centre retained
only £7.8m of this giving rise to a loss of almost £16m. This impact will predominantly fall on outof-centre stores located further afield in Fakenham, Aylsham, North Walsham and Cromer. This
claw back of expenditure (£4.58m15) represents approximately 47% of the proposed store’s total
forecast turnover in 2017. The RIA suggests that this claw back could be higher, which would
further reduce the impact on other shops and stores. The RIA also indicates that the trade draw
from the Morrisons store in Cromer would be £1.5m and this would continue to trade well above
its company average. Although a diversion of £1.5m is predicted on an out-of-centre store, we note
however that £1.2m is estimated to have originated within sector 2 which is Holt’s primary food
catchment area and this is a more realistic assessment of ‘leakage’ as opposed to the £1.5m cited in
paragraph 4.34.
6.20
With regard to Holt town centre, the RIA forecasts that there will be a diversion of around £1.8m
from the existing Budgens store; equivalent to a -18.6% impact. This estimate is based on the fact
that Budgens is the closest supermarket to the application site and there will be some trading
overlap between the two stores in terms of their food and grocery offer. This is certainly correct in
our view because the household surveys clearly confirm that it does meet a not insignificant
proportion of main food shopping needs. The RIA concludes that Budgens is currently trading
strongly a reflection of the limited choice and competition in Holt. The RIA concludes that after
allowing for the impact of the proposed store it is forecast that Budgens will still achieve a
convenience goods turnover level some 35.5% above its benchmark level.
13
Paragraph D.14 of the Practice Guidance notes that in assessing the likely turnover, account should be taken of the
anticipated size of the proposed store and that turnover/floorspace ratios will vary depending on the size of store.
14
It used a notional £10,000 sq.m. sales density for planning future floorspace need based on a national multiple grocery
retailer. However it is clear from Figure 4.2 of the main volume to the study that the main retailers such as Tesco, Asda,
Sainsbury’s, Waitrose and Morrisons were already trading in excess of the £10,000 sq.m. sales density in 2004.
15
From Table 12 the diversion from stores further afield and outside sectors 1-4 is £3.7m.
25
3.25
6.21
The RIA concludes that the proposed store will have a more limited trade diversion and impact on
Holt’s other smaller specialist food and convenience stores, as these will not compete ‘like-for-like’
with the proposed foodstore’s primary role and function as a main food shopping destination. These
smaller convenience stores mainly cater for more frequent top up (‘basket’) based shopping, as well
as meeting the needs of the substantial year-round visitor/tourist trade in Holt. It is forecast that
the proposed store will divert some £0.35m from these smaller specialist stores, which is equivalent
to a -9.5% impact.
6.22
In this case the total diversion of convenience goods expenditure from Holt Town Centre is
predicted by the Applicant to be -£2.14m. This is equivalent to an impact of -16.1% on the town’s
total convenience turnover of £13.3m in 2017. The RIA concludes that this impact would enable the
town centre will continue to trade at some 25% above its benchmark level. If the town’s
comparison goods turnover is included in its overall turnover, then it is clear that the overall
forecast impact (%) would be significantly lower. However the RIA provides no information on the
total impact on the town centre since its estimated comparison goods turnover in 2017 is not
calculated.
6.23
The RIA asserted that the store would have a positive economic benefit for the town because its
location would secure the maximum possible number of linked shopping and other trips. This would
be reflected in increased footfall and ‘spin off’ expenditure. However no analysis was provided to
verify this conclusion and at our request the Applicant has provided additional information in a
latter dated 22nd January 2013. This refers to research undertaken by the University of
Southampton which examined the effects of food stores on smaller towns. It concluded that such
stores encouraged residents to shop locally and in some cases have assisted in increasing footfall
within their respective town centres.
6.24
The Applicant estimates that if only 30% (£2.3m) of the ‘clawed back’ expenditure was converted
into ‘linked trip’ expenditure this would outweigh the forecast trade diversion. This would be the
equivalent of £44,000 per week equivalent to 3,700 linked trips with an average spend of £12. The
Applicant also disputes that the linked shopping trips between the Budgens store and the town
centre would not be ‘lost’ from the centre as a whole because those people who currently link their
food shopping trip will continue to do so even if they transferred their loyalty to the new store.
(v) Assessment of trade diversion
6.25
The Government published in 1994 ‘The Impact of Large Foodstores on Market Towns and District
Centres’. We acknowledge that the research is almost 20 years old and that each case must be
treated on merit. However this study does provide at least some useful guidance which is factually
based upon individual case studies in a range of towns. We draw attention to the following points:
The House of Commons Environment Select Committee’s Fourth Report (1994)
highlighted the vulnerability of small town centres to lasting damage from large food
stores (paragraph 1.6).
A common claim made by developers and retailers is that stores claw-back expenditure
leaking to more distant centres, and by so doing increase the opportunities for linked
trips particularly for edge of centre stores. A counter view is that while large stores
may claw-back expenditure they also compete directly with town centre supermarkets
and also absorb some of the “top-up” trade of specialist convenience retailers
(paragraph 8.47).
In the case of two edge-of-centre case studies (Cirencester and Warminster) the main
effect of the two stores was to divert trade from the town centre to the edge-of-centre
26
3.26
locations. This could have been due to the particular circumstances of the two towns
(paragraph 11.23).
Large, highly accessible stores will achieve greater claw-back (paragraph 11.24).
While some of the case studies showed that linked trips increased following the opening
of a non-central foodstore, there was no evidence of any significant increase in the use
of the centres for non-food shopping (paragraph 11.26).
The propensity for linked trips depends upon:
-
The extent to which the store complements the centre;
The distance and physical linkages between the two;
The relative size of the centre compared with the store; and
Accessibility, car parking and orientation of the store.
(paragraph 8.69)
Smaller centres which depend on convenience retailing are most at risk.
6.26
In the case of Holt like many of the towns within the District, the centre’s robustness and vitality,
depends to a significant degree on convenience goods retailing for its underlying health.
6.27
The new store would provide a facility of at least equal quality to that offered by the Budgens store
albeit that its overall sales area and convenience sales area would be somewhat smaller. Budgens has
a total sales area of approximately 1,200 sq.m. of which approximately 850 sq.m. is devoted to the
sale of food and convenience goods.
6.29
We note the comments of GR Planning Consultancy regarding the size of the proposed store and
question whether it is ‘fit for purpose’ i.e. whether it is capable of accommodating a significant
proportion of main food shopping trips. Reference is made to food stores needing to have
approximately 1,300 sq.m. net of trading floorspace to be able to effectively perform a ‘main’ food
shopping role. We are not aware that the 1,300 sq.m. figure is based on empirical evidence and
certainly the Inspector in respect of the proposed Tesco store in Sheringham in 2008, concluded
that it was capable of clawing back a significant proportion of main food shopping expenditure based
on a net convenience goods floorspace of 1,200 sq.m. The Inspector made clear that in her view the
town should attempt to retain as much as possible of the expenditure generated in Sheringham’s
primary catchment area and a new store must be of sufficient size to provide effective competition.
Consequently it is necessary to achieve an acceptable balance between effecting increased claw-back
while seeking to minimise the impact on existing town centre retailers.
6.30
More significantly the telephone household survey confirms that the Budgens store with a
convenience goods sales area only slightly larger than the proposed store, accommodates £3.6m of
main food expenditure from the £19.4m generated within Sector 2 in 2012. In total from the four
sectors the store attracts £4.6m of main food expenditure with £2.7m of top-up expenditure being
drawn from an equivalent area. Thus main food turnover accounts for 63% of its total turnover as
derived from the four sectors (based on the Applicant’s estimate).
6.31
Thus we believe that the proposed store is capable of attracting main food shopping expenditure.
6.32
Having regard to the advice contained within Paragraph 26 of the Framework we comment as
follows:
27
3.27
a. Impact on existing, committed and planned public and private investment
6.33
We are not aware of any existing or committed public and private sector investment i.e. with
planning permission which would be delayed or prohibited by the proposed development.
b. Impact on town centre vitality and viability including local consumer choice and
trade in the town centre and wider area
6.34
The main considerations here relate to the degree to which the level of trade particularly within the
convenience goods sector would have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the
town centre when examined as a whole. Paragraph D.34 of the Practice Guidance states:
“When considering the impact on existing trade/turnover for the classes of goods proposed
to be sold from a known development, it may be sufficient to give a broad indication of the
proportion of the proposal’s turnover likely to be derived from different centres and facilities
in the catchment area of the proposal, and what the consequences of each is in terms of
reduction in turnover and impact. In more complex cases, particularly where overall effects
on travel patterns are likely to be key considerations, an analysis of ‘before and after’
shopping patterns may be appropriate to illustrate clearly how current patterns are
expected to change following the development of commitments and the proposals under
consideration.”
6.35
Paragraph 5.5 of the Practice Guidance also stresses that it is a matter for the decision maker to
judge what constitutes a ‘significant’ adverse impact16. It is inevitable that any new retail
development will have some impact on existing shops and centres. To this extent it would be
detrimental i.e. negative, in effect.
1. Town centre trade
6.36
As we have stated above we believe that in assessing the likely impact of the store it is appropriate
to assume a high design year turnover of the proposed store. Based on an assumed sales density of
£14,000 sq.m. in 2017 the convenience goods turnover of the store would be £11.3m.
6.37
In addition following further discussions with GR Planning Consultancy we also believe that the RIA
is likely to have over-estimated the convenience goods turnover of the Budgens store within the
town centre. This in part may be a reflection of an unrealistically high level of in-flow from beyond
Sectors 1-4. the RIA assumes that this would be 20% of the Budgens turnover in 2017 i.e. £1.9m.
6.38
In our opinion a more realistic turnover for the Budgens store in 2017 is likely to be approximately
£8.2m17 at 2010 prices.
6.39
Assuming that the trade draw to the proposed store remains the same the impact on the Budgens
store in 2017 would be approximately £2.1m compared with the £1.79m assumed in the RIA. This
would equate to an impact of approximately 26% on Budgens’ convenience goods turnover.18
6.40
This would mean that the store would trade at £6.m in 2017 which would remain only marginally
above its benchmark turnover of £5.8m in 2017 (based on the Applicant’s estimate). Moreover as
we explain below we believe that the store is likely to trade at a lower turnover after the impact of
16
Paragraph 7.3 of the Practice Guidance states that it is ultimately a matter for the decision maker i.e. the Council in this
case, to determine what constitutes an ‘acceptable, ‘adverse’ or ‘significant adverse’ impact based on the circumstances
of each case.
17
This is our estimate and we have not sought to seek corroboration from GR Planning Consultancy.
18
We understand that its turnover from comparison goods is very modest.
28
3.28
the planned Tesco store in Sheringham is included. The RIA in this regard does not seek to provide
a cumulative impact assessment based on the likely trading levels post-Tesco and then superimpose
the impact of the planned store at Thaxters Yard.19
6.41
In terms of the total impact on the town’s convenience goods trade, the impact would be
approximately 20% compared with around 16% estimated by the Applicant.
6.42
It therefore seems likely in our view that the scheme would have a more dramatic and therefore
significant impact on the turnover generated within the Budgens store (assuming all other
assumptions remain broadly equal). Nonetheless we do not believe that the company would seek to
surrender its trading position as the main supermarket within the town centre. It would retain its
pre-eminent position and in terms of assessing impact it is necessary to focus on the town as a
whole. The company does not claim that it would close but we acknowledge that the test is
whether the trading performance and attractiveness of the store would be so reduced as to lead to
a significant adverse impact on the town as a whole and after taking into account all other impacts.
6.43
In respect of smaller town centre shops including the food offer within CT Baker Ltd, we also
acknowledge that many will trade at small net margins so that the loss of even a limited proportion
of their turnover could have significant implications for their vitality and viability. This general
conclusion was reached by an Inspector in respect of two appeals relating to the development of a
superstore in Stretford, Manchester in November 2006 (APP/Q4245/A/05/1179615). At paragraph
46 he concluded:
“Whilst the small independent businesses can operate in niche markers and can be
highly flexible and responsive, their resources can be limited such that they lack
financial resilience.”
6.44
The DETR report confirms that large food stores will absorb some of the top-up trade of specialist
convenience retailers and the decline in general of the number of smaller independent retailers is in
part testimony to the impact which larger stores have had. It is noteworthy in Holt however that
there are a range of independent butchers (3No.), fishmongers (2No.) bakers and fruit and
vegetable outlets which amongst other things, specialise in selling locally produce goods. These
stores appear to be well used and are clearly continuing to offer a service and quality of produce
notwithstanding the range available within out of centre food stores.
6.45
Paragraph 7.32 of the Practice Guidance advises:
“Where a centre is experiencing falling rents, high levels of vacancy and declining footfall, even
modest levels of trade diversion can have significant adverse impacts. Where centres are vital and
viable, and existing retailers/leisure operators are achieving high levels of turnover, they may be
able to withstand high levels of trade diversion resulting from a proposal, although this does not
mean in itself mean that such impacts are acceptable. In most cases, unless there is clear evidence
of a significant impact on turnover likely to undermine the vitality and viability of the centre, the
negative effect of trade diversion needs to be balanced against any positive town centre or wider
impacts as part of reaching an overall judgement.”
6.46
There is no published information on rental levels. In terms of vacant units the centre performs
considerably better than the UK average with around 1% of shops/units vacant. This may be
compared with over 14% nationally. There is no information on pedestrian flows although the RIA
states that the centre is comparatively busy and vibrant and this accords with our own visits to the
town.
19
The explanation given in paragraphs 4.45 and 4.46 of the RIA is that the Tesco store will simply drawn shoppers living
within Zone 2 who already carry out their main food shopping trip outside the Holt area as opposed to those visiting the
Budgens store.
29
3.29
6.47
In our opinion there can be little doubt that the introduction of a new food store will have a
dramatic impact on shopping patterns and it is inevitable that some of the trade will be diverted
from existing centres. The trade drawn from Holt town centre will in our view be higher than
predicted in the RIA, the more so because the potential impact of the planned Tesco store in
Sheringham has not been specifically examined. The RIA concludes that the proposed Tesco store is
more likely to attract shoppers living within Sector 2 as opposed to diverting shoppers from
Budgens. However the Planning and Retail Assessment (August 2009) in support of the planned
Tesco application (09/0818) at Cromer Road in Sheringham did estimate that up to £0.24m20 of
convenience goods expenditure would be diverted from the Budgens store in the town centre along
with a significantly smaller proportion from town centre traders (£0.05m). This diversion is not
included within the RIA.
6.48
The cumulative impact of the planned Tesco store and proposed supermarket on the Thaxters Yard
site would lead to increased competition between both stores and it does not necessarily follow
therefore than the cumulative impact would lead to a reduction of approximately £250,000 in the
turnover of Budgens in Holt. In addition since it appears that the RIA is over-estimating the amount
of trade drawn from outside sectors 1-4 (estimated to be £1.9m; Table 12) which represents 20% of
the store’s design year turnover, it seems probable that a greater proportion of the turnover will be
derived from sector 2. Currently the RIA estimates that the store would draw 70% (£6.8m) of its
turnover from this sector. While there would remain a not insignificant amount of expenditure
which would continue to be ‘lost’ from this sector in 2017 post the store’s opening (in excess of
£8m), it nonetheless seems likely that some additional trade would be diverted from the town
centre. We believe that the effect along with the trade draw by Tesco in Sheringham, would be to
reduce the turnover of Budgens to at or around the company benchmark estimated by the
Applicant21. We believe that the RIA does not address this scenario in any detail and tends to reaffirm our view that the impact on Budgens will be more significant than that estimated in the RIA.
This does not of course mean that the proposed store should be rejected because the Government
is committed to increasing competition and choice and securing sustainable economic growth. The
issue is whether the development would undermine the vitality and viability of the centre as a whole
having regard to turnover retained within the centre and the level of choice which would result in
the longer term.
6.49
In respect of comparison goods, the scheme we believe that the additional comparison goods
turnover that is generated will primarily be through complementary purchases made as part of a
main convenience trip rather than a dedicated trip for comparison goods. This is likely to minimise
but not totally alleviate, direct competition or impact on the town centre. Typically comparison
goods products sold relate to small scale household goods, toiletries, health and beauty products, a
limited range of CDs and DVDs, pet food and a limited range of clothing. Stores of the size
proposed are rarely comparison goods shopping destinations in their own right and draw trade
primarily from other similar types of store.
2. Investment and trade retained within the town
6.50
It is a truism that any development by a national retailer can be said to create considerable
investment in the local area. The development would involve investment in the local area and create
employment opportunities. It would also increase choice within the town as a whole and is unlikely
to materially diminish choice within the town centre.
20
Converted from to 2010 prices. We note however that the turnover of this store was significantly under-estimated and
consequently its market share has been proven through more recent surveys to be larger. This would tend to increase the
proportion of trade which would be lost to the planned Tesco store although the net cumulative effect may remain as
predicted due to mutual competition between the Tesco and proposed store at Thaxters Yard.
21
We have noted the comments of GR Planning Consultancy in respect of the inappropriate use of benchmark turnovers.
However they provide a guide as to what may constitute acceptable trading levels within a particular store.
30
3.30
6.51
It would based on the broad brush assessment of capacity, increase the total proportion of
convenience goods expenditure retained within the town as a whole and its ability to claw back
some expenditure from centres further afield will reduce the number and length of vehicle miles
travelled with concomitant reductions in CO2 emissions. In respect of convenience goods the
impact is however likely to primarily involve clawing back expenditure generated within sector 2.
The RIA estimates that the total convenience goods turnover would be increased from £13.3m to
£20.9m.
6.52
The scheme would increase the overall level of trade retained within the town as a whole i.e. not
just the town centre and would increase consumer choice.
(vi) Overall conclusions on retail impact
6.53
In our view the impact of the food store would have a greater impact on the town centre than
predicted in the RIA for the following reasons:
The likely turnover of the Budgens store within the town centre has been overestimated.
The likely design year turnover of the proposed store could be greater than that used in
the assessment.
No figures are provided for the impact associated with the planned Tesco store in
Sheringham.
The proportion of linked shopping trips overall are likely to have a neutral impact on
the centre after taking into account possible reductions in linked trips with the Budgens
store.
6.54
However paragraph 27 of the NPPF requires a decision maker to assess whether it is likely to have
a significant adverse impact on the centre as a whole.
6.55
Having regard the following considerations we do not believe that the scheme would be likely to
have a significant adverse impact:
There is a substantial loss of convenience goods expenditure from Sector 2 which is
capable of being clawed back to support additional floorspace.
The town centre is relatively vibrant and robust. It is clearly popular with shoppers and
visitors and provides an attractive shopping environment.
The Budgens store within the town centre is the only main supermarket and this
appears to trade well and is popular with shoppers.
The smaller independent convenience goods shops are on the whole more specialist
and appear to trade reasonably well notwithstanding the out-of-centre competition.
The town’s overall vitality and viability is supported not just by its convenience goods
shopping role but also its comparison retail offer and the range of financial and
professional services. The RLS 2005 estimated that in 2016 the town could attract
£45.6m of comparison goods expenditure (c£40.3m at 2010 prices). Thus a diversion of
approximately £2.7m (after some allowance is made for the Tesco store in Sheringham),
the impact would equate to approximately 5% of the town’s total turnover.
31
3.31
6.56
We conclude that the scheme would therefore have a higher predicted impact that that assessed by
the Applicant. Given the overall ‘health’ of the town, the scale of the planned store, the availability
of expenditure and ability to increase retention, we do not believe that it would be significantly
adverse in the context of the NPPF and Policy EC5. Nonetheless it should be noted that the solus
and cumulative impact on Budgens as the town’s primary food shopping destination would be
particularly high and there is no doubt that this store does generate linked shopping and other trips
to the rest of the centre. While these might be off-set by the benefits of a new store on the
application site, it would in our view be advantageous for the Applicant to agree to appropriate
measures to mitigate the direct and indirect effects of the scheme. The proportion of trade drawn
from the town is likely to be higher and the loss of expenditure will lead to some reduction in the
number of shoppers within the centre. We acknowledge the Applicant’s claim that people would
continue to visit the town irrespective of the proposed store since they will still require other
shopping and service needs to be met. Nonetheless we do believe that some mitigation is justified.
6.57
Such measures could include:
Improving the pedestrian route and underpass leading to and from the town centre to
facilitate linked shopping and other trips on foot.
Providing an appropriate level of financial funding for improvements to shop fronts and
other environmental enhancement within the town centre.
Improving existing bus stops in the town centre including the possibility of installing real
time information systems.
Providing a financial contribution towards the Council’s strategy for improving the
quality of car parking in the town centre.
6.58
These are intended to be suggestions of the type of improvements/measures which would assist in
mitigating the impact on the town centre as a whole.
32
3.32
7.0
ASSESSMENT AGAINST PLANNING POLICY
(i)
North Norfolk Core Strategy (September 2008)
7.1
The CS sets out an overall vision for Holt. Core Aim 2 seeks to concentrate development within
existing settlements that have the greatest potential to become more self-contained and the scheme
is broadly consistent with this objective. The vision for Holt recognises that it will thrive as a visitor
destination based on its reputation as a ‘niche’ retail centre.
7.2
It would assist in providing jobs, training and career opportunities in accordance with Core Aim 5.
However there is little evidence that it would improve the commercial viability of Holt town centre
nor improve its vitality and viability.
7.3
It would in our view be generally consistent with Policy SS1 which identifies Holt as a Principal
Settlement within which the majority of new housing and commercial development will be
concentrated22. It is also consistent with Policy SS 10 which identifies Holt as a Small Town Centre.
7.4
Policy EC5 is a key policy since it sets out the test applicable to retail development. Paragraph
3.4.18 states that:
“In contrast the smaller towns in the District serve smaller catchments and to varying
degrees have developed a particular niche market role, are remoter and poorly served by
roads and public transport, are dependant upon the seasonal influx of tourists, and retain
their locally distinctive small shop character. Disproportionately large scale development in
these smaller towns may have an adverse impact on their character and thus diminish their
attractiveness as tourist destinations. Furthermore such developments may encourage
unnecessary car journeys from the larger towns. Consequently it is considered that
developments here should be smaller in scale and should be designed to meet identified
needs in the town and its immediate surroundings.”
7.5
The policy requires retail proposals with a net sales area of more than 750 sq.m. to be located
within a defined Primary Shopping Area. The application involving a net sales area of above 750
sq.m. sq.m. does not meet this test. Compliance is therefore required in respect of the four bullet
points identified within the policy. Dealing with each in turn:
Need: There is no longer a requirement to prove that there is a quantitative need for the
development. In our view there is scope to increase the level of convenience goods expenditure
generated within the town’s PCA. In terms of qualitative need, it would improve the range and
quality of food stores in the Holt area.
Sequential approach: For the reasons given in section 5 we believe that the Applicant has made
an appropriate assessment of alternative sites. In our opinion only the Old School House site is
potentially available for development. However we have reservations about its ability to
accommodate a food store of between 1,300-1,400 sq.m. gross while still meeting the various land
use, heritage and access issues.
Impact: It is inevitable that the introduction of a new food store of around 1,400 sq.m. gross
would have an impact on the town centre and the trading levels within the main stores. The test is
whether this would be likely to significantly adverse.
Accessibility: We have not specifically addressed this issue.
22
Along with Cromer, Fakenham and North Walsham.
33
3.33
(ii)
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012
7.6
Section 2 of the Framework sets out the Government’s objectives in promoting the vitality of town
centres. The need to comply with the sequential approach and impact tests encapsulated within the
former PPS4 remain.
7.7
In relation to the sequential test we are believe that the suitability of the Old School House to
accommodate the scale and type of development proposed is ultimately a matter for the Council to
decide. We have highlighted the irregular shaped nature of the site and the planned layout which is
likely to result in a sub-optimal but not necessarily unviable or commercially unattractive
development. Nonetheless there appear to be a wide range of currently unresolved design, layout,
highway, heritage and open space issues.
7.8
The scheme would have a negative impact on the town centre which would include a reduction in
trade within the centre itself. The test however is whether it would be significantly adverse.
(iii)
Policy position on section 106 contributions
7.9
The Council considered a report at a meeting of its cabinet on 30th May 2012, in respect of the
adopted policy position relating to section 106 contributions associated with retail development.
The report addresses the absence of a specific policy setting out the circumstances under which
retail developments might be required to mitigate the impact on existing town centres. This would
be triggered in the event that a retail impact assessment following audit by an independent retail
consultant would be deemed to have a detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of an existing
centre.
7.10
The report accepts that the Council’s policy must comply with the requirements of the Community
Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and the NPPF. Section 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure
Levy, England and Wales (2010) reinforces the need for a planning obligation to be necessary to
make the development acceptable, directly related to it and fairly and reasonably related in scale and
kind. The NPPF at paragraph 204 stresses the need to ensure that a planning obligation should only
be sought where they are:
necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
directly related to the development; and
fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
7.11
In the context of the application proposal we have concluded that there would be a negative impact
on the town centre and to this extent it would be detrimental. In respect of this issue is set out
within Policy EC 5 of the CS and at paragraph 27 of the NPPF. While the scheme would not be
likely to give rise to a significant adverse impact on the centre as a whole we believe that it is
appropriate for the Council to request that a financial contribution is made towards mitigating the
loss of trade which is predicted to be greater than that estimated in the RIA.
7.12
We understand that the Council is developing a strategy for improving car parking provision within
the centre and additional improvements could be made to the pedestrian route into the town
centre from the application site.
34
3.34
(v) Overall conclusions
7.13
In terms of paragraph 26 of the NPPF we are not aware that the scheme would adversely impact on
existing, committed or planned public and private sector investment in the centre or wider
catchment area. Nonetheless while the town centre is relatively vibrant and robust the proposed
store in conjunction with the planned Tesco supermarket at Sheringham, would divert a significant
amount of convenience goods expenditure and this impact should in our view be mitigated by
appropriate schemes of enhancement.
35
3.35
8.0
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS
8.1
In the event that the Council is minded to grant planning permission we suggest that a condition be
imposed to control the nature of the proposed use. Paragraph 8.1 of the Practice Guidance states
that conditions should be used to proactively manage the impacts of development including limiting
any internal alterations to increase the amount of gross floorspace by specifying the maximum
amount which is permitted. Similarly the mix of convenience and comparison goods can be
controlled. Paragraph 8.5 states:
“In the case of retail proposals where an impact assessment has been undertaken,
based upon a particular scale of net sales floor space, and the impact and
appropriateness of the scale of development has been judged acceptable, it will
normally be appropriate to impose conditions restricting total net sales area
permitted, unless through sensitivity testing the consequences of different levels of net
sales floor space have been fully examined.”
8.2
A suggested condition could read as follows:
[1] The total area devoted to the display and sale of goods (excluding checkouts, lobbies,
concessions, customer walkways and toilet) shall be limited to 895 sq.m. net. Not more than
90 sq.m. net shall be used for the sale of comparison goods.
8.3
A restriction on other uses within Class A1 should also be considered to reduce the potential for
introducing a pharmacy and cafe to reduce the degree to which the store would replicate such
provision within the town centre.
36
3.36
9.0
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
9.1
In accordance with our instruction from the Council we have reviewed the RA and RIA submitted
in support of the planning application.
9.2
We have identified that the grocery sector plays an important role in the national economy and is
one of the sectors which continues to grow and create employment opportunities. The scheme will
increase the market share of the centre (taken to include the wider area), create employment
opportunities and offer an increase consumer choice. All of these objectives are consistent with the
need to stimulate economic growth and create more sustainable forms of development as
encompassed within the NPPF.
9.3
Such objectives nonetheless require compliance with two key retail tests. The first is in respect of
site selection. The second relates to impact.
9.4
With regard to the assessment of alternative sites we believe that other than in respect of the Old
Station House, this is satisfied. The latter is judged to be available for development within a
reasonable period of time. However we are unable to conclude that this site while sequentially
preferable, is suitable for the development of a 1,400 sq.m. gross food store.
9.5
We believe that the impact on the town’s convenience goods trade has been under-estimated and
in particular the diversion from the Budgens store would be greater than anticipated. This is the
town’s premier food supermarket and in terms of maintaining choice and diversity within the
centre, its future presence is important to the vitality of the town.
9.6
On the basis of the available information and having regard to the Councils’ own retail study, we
believe that while some diversion of trade from the town centre would occur, an inevitable
consequence of out-of-centre retail schemes, the food store is not likely to give rise to a significant
adverse impact on the centre as a whole. Nonetheless for the reasons given we do believe that
the impact on the town centre is likely to have been underestimated based on a higher potential
design year turnover of the store, the over-estimation of convenience goods turnover in the town
centre due in part to over-estimating trade drawn from outside the study area, the higher
proportion of trade drawn from sector 2 (Holt) and the lower turnover which should be attributed
to Budgens, The latter is likely to experience a significant impact in terms of trade diversion.
9.7
Notwithstanding these comments we do not believe that the impact is likely to reach a threshold of
being significantly adverse because:
There is predicted to be a surplus of both convenience and comparison goods
expenditure to 2017 which is capable of supporting the proposed floorspace within the
foodstore. This is largely due to clawing back expenditure lost from sector 2.
The town retains only a relatively limited proportion of convenience goods expenditure
generated within its primary catchment area. Thus the proportion drawn from the town
centre will be proportionately less than that drawn from centres and stores further
afield.
The town centre is relatively vibrant and robust.
The Budgens store within the town centre is the only main supermarket and this
appears to trade well. In our view it is very unlikely to surrender its prime position even
assuming a higher level of trade draw and lower pre-impact turnover to that predicted
37
3.37
in the RIA. It would still be able to retain its role as meeting the main and top-up
shopping needs within the central shopping area.
The smaller independent convenience goods shops are on the whole more specialist
and appear to trade reasonably well notwithstanding the out-of-centre competition.
They offer a good range of locally grown products.
On the whole the proposed store is likely to compete with other similar types of store
and this is likely to involve diversions from Tesco and Morrisons in Fakenham and
Morrisons in Cromer. It would also allow the town as a whole to compete more
effectively with the planned Tesco store in Sheringham.
The Applicant does not provide a figure for the proportion of comparison goods
expenditure which could be diverted from the town centre. Given the predicted growth
of comparison goods expenditure within the catchment area and the predicted increase
in town centre trade, we believe that this element of the scheme is unlikely to give rise
to a significant adverse impact.
9.9
In terms of prohibiting or delaying town centre investment, we do not believe that possible plans to
redevelop the Old School House are sufficiently advanced to figure as a significant material
consideration.
9.10
Ultimately we acknowledge that it is a matter for the Council as decision maker to consider the
positive and negative aspects of the scheme. While we do not agree with all of the assumptions set
out within the RIA, we do believe that the Applicant has satisfied the sequential approach to site
selection. There would be an impact on the town centre but this is not by itself determinative
because the Practice Guidance recognises the inevitability of such effects where out-of-centre retail
development is proposed. Our overall conclusion is that this would not be significantly adverse as to
undermine its vitality and viability as a whole. Nonetheless the Council should recognise that a not
insignificant proportion of convenience goods trade would be ‘lost’ from the town centre and it
would in our view be appropriate to request that the Applicant accepts the need to mitigate this
impact and agrees to fund improvements which would directly address the loss of trade from the
town centre.
38
3.38