Appendix 6a
AUDIT OF
RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AND
PLANNING STATEMENT
PROPOSED FOOD SUPERSTORE
MARRICKS WIRE ROPES SITE
CROMER ROAD
NORTH WALSHAM
(APP. No. PF/12/0945)
PREPARED ON BEHALF
OF
NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL
December 2012
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
6a.1
CONTENTS
Page
1.0
INTRODUCTION
3
2.0
SITE LOCATION AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
4
3.0
REVIEW OF THE GROCERY RETAIL MARKET
6
4.0
RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL LEISURE STUDY (2005)
7
5.0
THE ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES
10
6.0
IMPACT
20
7.0
ASSESSMENT AGAINST PLANNING POLICY
30
8.0
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS
33
9.0
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
34
Appendices (bound at the rear)
Appendix [1]
Appendix [2]
Appendix [3]
Appendix [4]
Appendix [5]
Appendix [6]
Appendix [7]
UK grocery market.
Catchment zones associated with the Retail and Commercial Leisure Study (2005).
Secretary of State’s decision in respect of Worksop (2011).
Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012].
Retail and Leisure Demand and Capacity and Feasibility Study (RLDCF).
Appeal decision in Barnoldswick, Lancashire dated 31st October 2012.
Appeal decision in Todmorden, West Yorkshire dated 13th November 2012.
2
6a.2
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
MWA has accepted an instruction from North Norfolk District Council (the ‘Council’) to undertake an
audit of the methodology, assumptions and conclusions contained within the Retail Impact Assessment
(RIA) submitted by Scott Properties Ltd in support of a full planning application for the erection of a 5,575
sq.m. gross1 food store together with a petrol filling station at Cromer Road, North Walsham.
1.2
The planning application is also accompanied by a Planning Statement (PS) within which a sequential
assessment of alternative sites is provided. We have therefore also had regard to the information within
this document in preparing our report.
1.3
The Council will be aware that in June 2012 we provided advice in respect of the proposed occupation of
the former Focus DIY store at Cromer Road, North Walsham (App. No. PF/12/0310) by Waitrose. The
permission has been implemented and the store is now open and trading. We have had regard to the
advice previously given to the Council in assessing the current proposal.
1.4
In preparing our report we have made visits to North Walsham and the adjoining towns.
1.5
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 North Walsham 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.
Gross Internal Area.
3
6a.3
2.0
SITE LOCATION AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(i)
Site location
2.1
Sections 3 and 4 of the PS describe the site and its location. It is situated on the north-western side of the
town along the A149 (Cromer Road). It also confirms that it is located approximately 1 mile (1.6kms)
from the town centre. In the context of the site’s out-of-centre location the PS confirmed that a
sequential test is required.
2.2
In the context of national advice within Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) we
conclude that the application site:
Involves previously developed land2.
Involves an out of centre location which is not within or on the edge3 of North Walsham
town centre but is within the urban area4.
(ii)
2.3
The proposed development
Section 3 of the planning application form describes the proposal as follows:
“Demolition of existing derelict factory unit and pair (2No.) of derelict dwellings and change
of use to open A1 retail class use permitting the construction of a 60,000 sq.ft/5,575 sq.m.
(GIA) store with associated car parking providing 412 parking spaces and a petrol filling
station.”
2.4
Paragraph 1.1 of the PS refers to the construction of a ‘supermarket’. The NPPF provides no guidance on
what is defined as a supermarket but it is clear from the RIA that the scheme proposes the erection of a
large food store selling predominantly convenience goods and aimed at attracting one of the major
grocery retailers.
2.5
In respect of the trading area proposed, the RIA in Section 4 refers to an area of 3,623 sq.m5. Of this
2,536 sq.m. would be devoted to convenience goods and 1,087 sq.m. to comparison goods. It is not clear
whether this includes the checkouts. Appendix A of the Practice Guidance accompanying the former 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:
2
Annex 2 to the NPPF defines previously developed land as including land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure
including the curtilage of developed land.
3
A retail location which is well connected and up to 300 metres of the primary shopping area but which may vary depending
upon local circumstances.
4
Annex 2 of the NPPF states that an out-of-centre location involves a location which is not in or on the edge of a centre but not
necessarily outside the urban area.
5
This is based on 65% of the gross area.
4
6a.4
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.”
2.6
In our view it is necessary to examine the planning application as submitted. In the event that permission is
granted it would be appropriate to consider imposing a 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 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.”
2.7
As far as we are aware the Applicant has not accepted that conditions should be imposed to control the
range of goods and the net (sales) area and indeed we note that the planning application form refers to
consent being sought for an ‘open’ i.e. unrestricted, retail planning permission. We acknowledge however
that paragraph 8.8 of the PS suggests that conditions could be imposed should the Council feel it necessary
to do so.
2.8
Section 7 of the PS identifies various matters in favour of granting planning permission. In particular
reference is made to the creation of new employment opportunities and approximately 250 jobs are
identified.
2.9
Section 8 of the PS also identifies the need to increase choice and competition and reduce the leakage of
expenditure to centres further afield thereby achieving a more sustainable form of development.
5
6a.5
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 and Waitrose alone over the next two years.
3.2
The scheme is predicted to deliver 250 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.
6
6a.6
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 North Walsham. 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) North Walsham
4.3
Section 3 of the RLS provides an overview of the main settlements within the District. In relation to
North Walsham the main points which were identified at the time are as follows:
The town lies in the east of the District, and is one of the identified growth centres. The core
shopping activity in the centre is focused on Market Place and adjoining streets. The historic
character of the centre, with St. Nicholas’s Church at its heart, has resulted in an attractive
environment and popular shopping destination.
The designation of the whole of the town centre as a Conservation Area, along with its
large number of listed buildings, has limited the potential to modernise and increase its retail
offer over recent years. As a result, much of the new development and investment has
occurred on the edge of the town centre - including the J. Sainsbury to the north- east (off
Bacton Road) and the Lidl and Roys Variety Store to the south (off Yarmouth Road).
In relation to its underlying health:
Floorspace – The town has a similar quantum of floorspace as Cromer (over 20,000
sq.m.) and is ranked behind Fakenham.
Multiple Offer – The town has a relatively good multiple representation compared
to the rest of the District. Key anchor stores include Boots along with J.Sainsbury's,
Roys and Lidl.
Retail Rankings – Like Fakenham, North Walsham has fallen over 300 places in the
national centre rankings since 1999 and is currently placed 1,120nd.
Convenience Offer – North Walsham has an above average representation of
outlets (10%), benchmarked against the national average of 7%. The town is a
7
6a.7
relatively strong destination for a variety of convenience shopping needs, as its high
provision of traditional convenience-based stores (such as butchers, bakers,
fishmongers etc.), are balanced by two large supermarkets, namely Sainsbury’s to the
north (off Bacton Road) and Lidl to the south (off Yarmouth Road).
Comparison Offer – The centre has an under-provision of non-food outlets (29%)
benchmarked against the national average (33%). There are significant gaps in a
number of comparison goods categories - including catalogue showrooms; clothing;
footwear; and general household goods outlets. Roys variety store is the main
destination for these types of goods in the town centre. There are a significant
number of smaller independently-owned shops, particularly fronting Market Place, but
only a limited number of boutique and gift shops. This reflects the fact that North
Walsham has a more limited role for tourist/visitor shopping than other centres in the
District.
Department and Variety Stores – Roys and Woolworths were identified as the
two main anchor stores in the town.
Service Offer – North Walsham has a relatively good service provision, with nearly
32% of outlets in this category benchmarked against the national average of 35%.
Cafés, restaurants and bars – The proportion of eating and drinking
establishments (10%) broadly matches the national average (12%). There are limited
branded outlets within the town, although several of the pubs are run by multiple
operators (such as Mitchell & Butlers).
Leisure – There is very little other commercial leisure provision within the town
centre, apart from a snooker hall and two public halls. Other leisure provision within
the town includes Rossi’s Leisure Centre, the Victory Swim and Fitness Centre and
North Walsham Sports Centre.
Vacancy Levels – Vacancies within the town centre are 7%, which is lower than the
national average and the levels recorded in 1995 (10%). Most of the vacant outlets are
concentrated in the secondary shopping streets and comprise smaller units which do
not generally meet the requirements of modern retailers.
Retailer Requirements – At the time there were six recorded requirements from
businesses for representation in the town.
Size of Units – There is a poor supply of larger units in the town to help meet (and
generate) demand from national multiple operators. Stores such as Sainsbury's, Lidl
and Roys are all based in larger units, but they are located away from the Market
Place.
(iii) The town’s catchment area
4.4
The report concluded based on a survey of people within the centre that the majority of North
Walsham’s shoppers live within either the 10 minute (62%) or 20 minute (20%) catchment. This highlights
the fact that the town primarily serves the local population and is not as significant a tourist/visitor
destination as other centres in the District. The majority of respondents (56%) travelled to the centre by
car, over 38% also walked to the centre. It attracted more frequent trips than any of the other centres in
North Norfolk. Over 72% of people indicated that they visit the centre once a week or more, compared
with the all centre average of 56%. People mainly visited the town centre because it is close to where they
live or work. Respondents also stated that it has an attractive environment, and a good choice of shops.
8
6a.8
Although 20% stated that they did not visit any other centres for their shopping needs, nearly half do
regularly shop in Norwich for comparison goods.
4.5
Based on the results of a telephone household survey Sainsbury’s was identified as the most popular
foodstore, drawing some 11% of respondents from across the whole District and over 22% from within
Zone 3 (its core zone). This includes both Stalham and Hoveton and includes the following postcodes:
NR12 0
NR12 8
NR12 9
NR28 0
NR28 9
NR29 4
NR29 5
4.6
The various zones are attached as Appendix [2]. The Sainsbury’s store in North Walsham drew 22.1%
of the main food shoppers from Zone 3 with 5.5% from Zone 2.
(iv) Future convenience goods capacity
4.7
The RLS provided an estimate of future floorspace need within each centre and various scenarios were
tested. Scenario 2 was the preferred option recommended by the consultants. This made the following
assumptions:
Scenarios 2 and 2(a): ‘Higher Spend Growth’ – Assumes constant market shares and the County
Council’s ‘policy-led’ population projections. However, this scenario tests a higher expenditure growth
rate of +0.9% per annum and Scenario 2 therefore assumes a slightly higher turnover ‘efficiency’ growth
rate of approximately +0.3% per annum. For Scenario 2(a) the consultants tested the hypothetical impact
of no ‘efficiency’ growth on the capacity forecasts.
4.8
In relation to North Walsham based on a constant 76% level of retention within the core catchment
(Zone 3) with a 9% trade draw from the secondary area and an assumed inflow of 16% from non-residents
i.e. tourist expenditure, the consultants predicted that the town attracted £29.2m in 2004 which would
rise to £33.3m in 2016 (2001 prices). They predicted a residual expenditure of £3.4m by 2016 to support
new convenience goods floorspace.
4.9
In assessing this prediction it should be noted that the assessment was based on a constant market share
and no allowance was made for enabling the town to improve its retention through the provision of new
floorspace.
9
6a.9
5.0
THE ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES
(i) Introduction
5.1
Section 9 of the PS provides information on the assessment of alternative sites. Reference is made to the
Council’s decision to permit Waitrose to occupy the former Focus DIY store which lies in close proximity
to the Marricks Wire Ropes site. The PS examines the site considered as part of the Council’s
consideration of that application and two further sites are added: Midland Road and Laundry Loke.
(ii) The adopted approach
5.2
Paragraph 5.6 of the Practice Guidance states:
“The sequential approach forms a key policy consideration, and can in itself be a
clear reason for refusal. As such it is critical that applicants carry out a thorough
assessment to explore alternative options, and that if more central opportunities are
rejected, it is for sound reasons which are clearly explained and justified. As the
onus rests on the applicant to demonstrate compliance with sequential approach failure to
undertake such an assessment would constitute a reason for refusal, although as a matter of
good practice applicants and the LPA should seek to agree the scope of such assessments
and clearly identify any areas of difference.”
5.3
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, 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.
5.4
However paragraph 24 of the Framework does not explicitly refer to ‘viability’. It 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-to-date 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.”
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.
10
6a.10
5.5
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.”
5.6
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.
5.7
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
[3]. It was 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.
5.8
It is also necessary to take into account as stated in our previous report, the ruling of the Supreme Court
in Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13, where it was 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. A
copy is attached as Appendix [4].
5.9
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.”
5.10
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” 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 authorities7. 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
7
Although reference is made to Scottish guidance, the advice within the NPPF and the Practice Guidance is similar in approach.
11
6a.11
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 subdividing large proposals, in order that their scale may fit better with existing development in
the town centre.”
5.11
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.
5.12
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.
(iii) Centres to be assessed
5.13
The only centre which has been assessed is North Walsham. In adopting this approach it is also
relevant to note 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.
Although the catchment contains a number of other centres including Cromer, Aylsham, Stalham and
Hoveton, these lie in general on its periphery and we therefore accept that alternative sites in these towns
do not need to be assessed.
(iv) Site assessments
5.14
Six sites have been assessed. We examine each in turn. In providing our comments we have also had
regard to advice already received by the Council by Strategic Planning Advice Ltd in association with
Lunson Mitchenall & FSP Architects and Planners. The consultants have submitted a ‘Retail and Leisure
Demand, Capacity and Feasibility Study’ (RLDCF) which is attached as Appendix [5]. The study includes
an examination of potential redevelopment options examined within the PS.
Site 1: Vicarage Street
car park
1. Site area
Comments
The site extends to 0.36ha and is incapable of accommodation a
food store of between 5,000-6,000 sq.m. together with car parking.
Adjoining land is potentially available and includes:
-
Foundry Cars (car dealership)
St Johns Ambulance
Adjoining residential properties
Commercial depot along Mundesley Road
12
6a.12
2. Availability
We have previously estimated that the additional area taken in
combination would provide a site of around 0.65ha. If the depot
and two adjoining properties were to be included the site area
would increase to 0.81ha. However this would remain substantially
below the 2.6ha associated with the Marricks Wire Ropes site and
in our view even taken in combination the site is not suitable.
The site is in beneficial use as a town centre car park and is within
the ownership of the Council. Policy ROS8 of the Site Allocations
DPD for North Walsham identifies the site as a Retail Opportunity
Site (ROS). The type and scale of retail development is not
specified but paragraph 8.7.2 of the DPD states:
“While the car park provides town centre parking, it is not as
well used as other car parks in the area (such as the nearby
supermarket and Mundesley Road car parks which are free)
and it is therefore considered that sufficient provision is
available elsewhere in the area. Any proposal for
redevelopment should provide off-street servicing and on-site
public car parking.”
3. Suitability
The DPD makes clear that the Council is prepared to allow the
site to be redeveloped particularly since it is less well used than
other town centre car parks.
The PS refers to the proximity of the J Sainsbury food store and
states that the overall site area and constrained nature of the site
would limit any food store development to approximately 1,160
sq.m. gross.
The PS states that it is more suited to smaller multiple units. The
RLDCF concluded that the site was only capable of delivering a
small supermarket which would not be particularly effective. A
small group of shops was identified as being the preferred option.
4. Viability
5. Overall conclusions
The DPD requirement to make provision for affordable housing
would only apply in the event that part of the site was to be
developed for housing. The same applies in respect of community
infrastructure.
We conclude that this site is not suitable either in isolation or
combination with adjoining lands to accommodate the size of food
store proposed on the Marricks Wire Ropes site.
It is also not currently available.
13
6a.13
Site 2: St Nicholas
Precinct
1. Site area
2. Availability
3. Suitability
Comments
0.32ha
The site forms part of a small precinct containing a range of retail;
and commercial units. It is also referred to as North Walsham
Shopping Precinct.
Although a number of the units are vacant and it is in need of
refurbishment or potentially redevelopment, we do not believe
that it would be possible to secure control over all the units to
facilitate a comprehensive redevelopment.
Given the size of the site and inability to link any adjoining land we
do not believe that this site is suitable for the development of a
food store of the size proposed at Cromer Road. The PS advises
that smaller scale retail units are favoured.
The RLDCF concluded that the site was only capable of delivering
a small supermarket of around 1,255 sq.m. net which would not be
particularly effective. The preferred option involved partial
redevelopment of the precinct to re-integrate it with the rest of
the town centre.
4. Viability
5. Overall conclusions
The PS concludes that viability is not relevant given the site’s
inherent unsuitability.
We do not believe this site is available or suitable.
14
6a.14
Site 3: Community
Centre/Library/Fire
Station
1. Site area
2. Availability
3. Suitability
4. Viability
5. Conclusions
Comments
0.7ha
The site is currently in use as the town’s main library and fire
station. It is also used as a public car park. It lies adjacent to a post
office and sorting office and the Lidl supermarket.
The PS advises that the land is used for public facilities which would
need to be relocated elsewhere in the town. This reduces the
potential availability of the site. We recognise that the library and
community centre are important facilities and the Leadership of
Place report (July 2011) seeks to improve tourist and business
information services on the New Road site.
The limited size of this site renders it unsuitable for the
development of a large food store.
The PS makes no comment on potential viability although clearly
there would be related costs in terms of relocating the existing
services.
We accept that the redevelopment of a site containing a range of
existing uses presents more challenges than that associated with
re-occupying existing floorspace.
Overall we believe that the size of the site renders it unsuitable for
the scale and type of development proposed.
15
6a.15
Site 4: Former HL Foods
Site
Comments
1. Site area
The site extends to approximately 10ha.
2. Availability
The site forms part of 24.5ha identified in Policy NW01of the Site
Allocations DPD for North Walsham: Land at Norwich
Road/Nursery Drive.
Paragraph 8.1.11 states:
“The site is suitable and available for development. This is a
large, mixed use allocation which will need to be delivered in
phases. The site is in several ownerships and agents are
working with all landowners to deliver a scheme. A
development brief will be required for the proposed
development, which will establish the broad principles of
access, movement, mix of uses, layout, built form, density of
development, phasing and conceptual appearance. There is a
desire to retain existing uses associated with the garden centre
which provide local employment and services, and retention of
these should be provided for within any development brief.”
Therefore the DPD concludes that the site is available. The PS at
paragraph 9.44 also accepts that the site is available but
acknowledges that it could be in a range of ownerships.
On the basis of available information we believe that it is available.
3. Suitability
The DPD at paragraph 8.1.4 advises in respect of retail
development that:
“There is concern that any significant provision of retail
development on the site would compete with the town centre
and would not be desirable. Suitable sites for new retail
development in the town centre are identified elsewhere in
this document and no retail development will be permitted on
this site other than small scale local convenience shopping
which is designed to serve the needs of the new residents.”
We accept that any retail development would need to comply with
the sequential and impact tests set out within the Framework and
within the adopted Core Strategy. In retail terms it occupies an out
of centre location. However paragraph 24 of the Framework states
that in applying the sequential approach in the event that no in or
edge of centre sites are available, preference should be “given to
accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre.”
The PS refers to the need to ensure that the site delivers an
appropriate number of open market and affordable homes given
the identification of North Walsham as a Principal Settlement
within the adopted Core Strategy. It recognises that contribution
the site is capable of making towards the delivery of housing
equivalent to 70% of the total for the whole of the town.
16
6a.16
4. Viability
5. Overall conclusions
Developing a food store on the site it is claimed would seriously
reduce the ability to deliver the housing required and it is
estimated that the total number of new units would be halved. This
might affect the Council’s ability to ensure that an adequate range
of housing is delivered in accordance with NPPF guidance.
The PS does not seek to argue that a food store on this site would
be unviable and we agree. Rather it is stated that housing
development in accordance with the adopted Site Allocations DPD
should also be viable.
In accordance with the Secretary of State’s decision in Worksop
(APP/A3010/A/10/2124458) which is attached as Appendix [3] it
is necessary given the location of this site, its position relative to
the town centre and the proposed mix of uses which would
ultimately contain approximately 400 dwellings and five hectares of
serviced employment adjacent to the town’s railway station, for the
Applicants to clearly demonstrate why the site cannot
accommodate the type and scale of development proposed as part
of a first phase. Having regard to paragraph 6.8 of the Practice
Guidance it is not clear that this site is equal to or less well served
by a choice of means of transport. It is certainly closer to the town
centre’s primary shopping area and could potentially have a higher
likelihood of forming links with the centre.
As paragraph 8.1.2 of the DPD states:
“The site is within reasonable walking distance of the town
centre although it involves having to cross the A149 by-pass,
and the existing pedestrian crossing facilities may need to be
improved. The Millfield primary school is within walking
distance, but pedestrian crossing facilities on Norwich Road
will need to be provided to improve access to it. The proposed
site for the relocation of Paston College is also very close by,
as is the adjacent leisure centre. The site is also well located
for the railway station and there is a good level of bus
service past the site, providing good opportunities for non-car
based travel, although improvements to pedestrian access to
the railway station should be provided to encourage
increased use.”
Nonetheless we recognise that the Council has determined in
respect of App. No. PF/12/0310 that the site is not sequentially
preferable to the former Focus DIY store at Cromer Road. On this
basis and in order to be consistent in decision making we conclude
that it is not sequentially preferable.
17
6a.17
Site 5: Midland Road
Comments
1. Site area
The PS does not define the site area given the various land
ownerships.
2. Availability
It is stated that the landowners are not prepared to enter into an
agreement with a potential developer (Hatfield). This may require
the use of compulsory purchase powers to bring it forward.
3. Suitability
The site contains a range of land uses including housing and playing
field which would need to be relocated.
4. Viability
The need to secure control of all land ownerships would be
necessary and alternative provision would need to be made for
open space and playing fields.
Given the fact that this site also occupies an out-of-centre location
and given the Council’s previous approval of Waitrose at Cromer
Road, it cannot be held to be sequentially preferable.
5. Overall conclusions
Site 6: Laundry Loke
Comments
1. Site area
The site extends to approximately 0.93ha.
2. Availability
Policy NW25 of the Site Allocations DPD identifies approximately
0.9 hectares as suitable for a mixed use development of
approximately 10 dwellings and 0.2 hectares of serviced
employment premises. Development will be subject to compliance
with adopted Core Strategy policies including on-site provision of
the required proportion of affordable housing (currently 45%) and
contributions towards infrastructure, services, and other
community needs as required.
The DP states that The site is suitable and available for
development. It is in dual ownership and agents for
both landowners are supporting the allocation. There are no
known reasons why development on the site cannot be achieved
within the plan period.
3. Suitability
The site is not sufficiently large to accommodate a food store of
the size proposed on the Marricks Wire Ropes site.
4. Viability
The PS advises that a viable scheme is not practical due to its
limited size.
We conclude that the site is not suitable.
5. Overall conclusions
5.15
Although we agree in general terms with the PS that the identified sites are not suitable and/or available,
there is one further site which has not been examined by the Applicant. The RLDCF identified the Lawns
site associated with Paston College as having the capacity to accommodate a food store extending to
5,110 sq.m. gross. While this is slightly below that proposed at Marricks Wire Ropes site it is sufficiently
18
6a.18
comparable in terms of scale to warrant closer consideration particularly since the net sales area is
estimated to be around 3,700 sq.m.
5.16
The Lawns site is located immediately to the west of the town centre and is occupied by Paston Green
College. It has good access off Park Lane and thereby onto the A149. An indicative sketch scheme
suggests that a store of between 4,645 sq.m. gross and 5,481 sq.m. gross could be accommodated on the
land together with between approximately 220-230 car parking spaces.
5.17
Given the location and scale of this site and the potential it offers to deliver a food store of similar scale
and format to that proposed at Cromer Road, we are unable to conclude that the Applicant has met the
sequential approach to site selection.
5.18
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.”
5.19
Paragraph 27 of the NPPF states that where an application fails the sequential test it should be refused.
19
6a.19
6.0
IMPACT
(i) Introduction
6.1
The RIA is largely based on the work undertaken by Firstplan in support of the planning application by
Waitrose. In this regard the same catchment area has been adopted with slightly different expenditure
estimates based on an Experian Micromarketer report published in July 2012.
(ii) Catchment area
6.2
The catchment area is based on a 20 minute drive time which has been amended to correspond to 12
main postcode sectors. As we have previously advised the area covered by the postcodes is extensive and
includes for example the whole of Cromer and the eastern part of Sheringham (postcode NR27 9).
Cromer’s two main postcode sectors to the south and south-east are also included (NR11 8 and NR27 0).
Aylsham to the south-west of North Walsham is included (postcode sectors NR11 5 and 6). Stalham to
the south-east is included (postcode sector NR12 9). Hoveton falls within postcode sector NR12 8.
6.3
We have previously advised that the 0-10 minute drive time catchment areas for Cromer, Aylsham,
Hoveton and Stalham, stretch towards and in some cases overlap with the 0-10 minute drive time
associated with North Walsham. It reinforces our view that the use of all 12 postcodes as representative
of either the Primary Catchment Area of the town of North Walsham or indeed the proposed Waitrose
store, is excessive and is likely to overstate the amount of expenditure which can either b clawed back or
which can be assumed to be available to support new floorspace in the North Aylsham area.
6.4
The RIA refers to the telephone household survey conducted by NEMS as part of the assessment
prepared by Firstplan. A thousand households were surveyed in order to establish main food and top up
shopping patterns. We believe that this presents a robust basis for assessing ‘baseline’ shopping patterns.
6.5
From the results of the telephone household survey we have already advised that the Sainsbury’s store
within North Walsham primarily draws its main food shopping trade from the following postcodes:
-
6.6
NR11 7 (44.0%)
NR28 0 (70.4%)
NR28 9 (65.0%)
Smaller proportions are drawn from the following postcode sectors:
-
NR10 5 (16.1%)
NR11 8 (28.2%)
NR12 0 (21.7%)
6.7
The Lidl store mainly draws from NR28 0 and NR28 9.
6.8
In relation to top-up shopping, the Sainsbury store in North Walsham draws mainly from postcode
sectors NR28 0 (53.4%) and NR28 9 (46.5%) with reduced amounts from the other sectors.
6.9
In general terms while we accept that it is not inappropriate to start with a broad catchment area, it
is of course necessary to make sure that the area is not so broad as to be unrealistic given that the store
is intended to improve the choice and quality of shopping in North Walsham. In this context we have
provided a sensitivity test to the predicted catchment area used in the assessment of both the capacity for
additional convenience goods floorspace and the likely impact on existing shopping centres.
20
6a.20
6.10
The RIA provides a Primary Catchment Area (PCA) based on the postcode sectors NR11 7, NR28 0 and
NR28 9. A Secondary Catchment Area (SCA) is also defined from which the town and proposed
development would draw a lesser proportion of trade.
(iii)
Population and expenditure
6.10
The population estimates for the PCA in 2010 are the same as those adopted by us in respect of our June
2012 report. The RIA has slightly lower estimates of population in 2013 and 2016 based on the Experian
Micromarketer forecasts. For example we previously adopted a design year population of 20,946 in the
PCA in 2016 compared with 20,491 used in the RIA. These are not significantly different and we have
therefore continued to adopt the figures used in our previous assessment for the sake of consistency.
6.10
The RIA provides information on convenience and comparison goods expenditure after allowing for
special forms of trading. This provides the total available expenditure within the PCA and SCA in 2010 and
2016. In terms of convenience goods the RIA estimates that there would be approximately £38.7m
available in 2016 compared with £40.8m used in our June 2012 assessment.
6.11
Based on the revised population and expenditure estimates provided in the RIA it is possible to obtain a
broad indication of the level of retention within the PCA in 2010 and 2016 under a ‘no development
scenario i.e. excluding the proposed store at Cromer Road and the consented Waitrose. This is set out in
Table A below:
Table A: Available convenience goods expenditure within PCA 2010-2016 (£ms)
1. Total resident population
2. Total convenience goods
expenditure by residents £ms
3. Non-resident expenditure based
on 10% of resident expenditure
£ms8
4. Total convenience goods
expenditure available £ms
3. Main food expenditure 75%
(£ms)
4. Top-up expenditure 25% (£ms)
5. Expenditure drawn to North
Walsham (£ms)9
6. Retention %
6.12
2010
2016
Change 2010-16
19,207
36.6
20,491
38.7
+1,284
+2.1
3.7
4.1
+0.4
40.3
42.8
+2.5
30.2
32.1
+1.9
10.1
27.9
10.7
29.6
+0.6
+1.7
69.2
69.2
0.0
These figures are based on the actual turnover level achieved within existing stores and are indicative of
the relatively high level of retention already achieved. It is largely attributable to the turnover levels being
generated within the Sainsbury’s and Lidl stores. If it is assumed that the existing retailers improve their
floorspace efficiency levels at 0.2% per annum and the retention rate can be increased through the
introduction of a modern food store the following position emerges as set out in Table B:
8
We believe that this represents the maximum level of expenditure which could be expected to be derived from tourist and other
non-residents. A recent study undertaken on behalf of Great Yarmouth Borough Council (March 2012) made no allowance for
non-resident expenditure in predicting future floorspace needs for that town. We acknowledge that the RLS in 2005 assumed
that 16% of the town’s expenditure would be derived from non-residents but the basis for this level is not clearly explained.
9
Includes expenditure attracted to the town centre and the main food stores from the three main postcodes.
21
6a.21
Table B: Available convenience goods expenditure within PCA 2010-2016 assuming
0.2% increase in floorspace efficiency and improvement in retention levels
1. Total resident population
2. Total convenience goods
expenditure by residents £ms
3. Non-resident expenditure
based on 10% of resident
expenditure £ms
4. Total convenience goods
expenditure available £ms
3. Main food expenditure 75%
(£ms)
4. Top-up expenditure 25% (£ms)
5. Expenditure drawn to North
Walsham (£ms)10
6. Convenience goods turnover
of existing retailers
7. Retention %
8. Increase in retention rate –
surplus expenditure (£ms)
- 75%
- 80%11
10
11
2010
2016
Change 2010-16
19,207
36.6
20,491
38.7
+1,284
+2.1
3.7
4.1
+0.4
40.3
42.8
+2.5
30.2
32.1
+1.9
10.1
27.9
10.7
29.6
+0.6
+1.7
27.9
28.2
+0.3
69.2
65.9
-3.3
Nil
Nil
3.9
6.0
+3.9
+6.0
Includes expenditure attracted to the town centre and the main food stores from the three main postcodes.
This roughly equates to the retention rate estimated in the RSL in 2005.
22
6a.22
6.13
In the event that benchmark turnovers are used in the assessment the following position results as set out
in table C:
Table C: Available convenience goods expenditure within PCA 2010-2016 assuming
stores trade at benchmark (company average) levels with an 0.2% increase in floorspace
efficiency and improvement in retention levels
1. Total resident
population
2. Total convenience
goods expenditure by
residents £ms
3. Non-resident
expenditure based on 10%
of resident expenditure
£ms
4. Total convenience
goods expenditure
available £ms
3. Main food expenditure
75% (£ms)
4. Top-up expenditure
25% (£ms)
5. Expenditure drawn to
North Walsham (£ms)12
6. Benchmark convenience
goods turnover of existing
retailers
7. Retention %
8. Increase in retention
rate – surplus expenditure
(£ms)
- 75%
- 80%
6.14
2010
2016
Change 2010-16
19,207
20,491
+1,284
36.6
38.7
+2.1
3.7
4.1
+0.4
40.3
42.8
+2.5
30.2
32.1
+1.9
10.1
10.7
+0.6
27.9
28.2
+0.3
19.9
20.1
+0.2
49.4
46.9
-2.5
Nil
Nil
12.0
14.1
+12.0
+14.1
In June 2012 we concluded that on the basis of this type of analysis we believe that there is in theory
likely to be capacity to support further convenience goods floorspace in North Walsham. What needs to
be borne in mind in assessing the predicted expenditure capacity in Table C is that the increase from that
estimated in Table B is largely due to two factors:
The assumption that the town can increase its market share in convenience goods expenditure to the
levels estimated. We would not expect the town to achieve a market share in excess of 80% within
the 3 postcode sectors given the degree of competition in adjoining centres and journey to work
movements.
12
Includes expenditure attracted to the town centre and the main food stores from the three main postcodes.
23
6a.23
A reduction in the actual turnovers of the two main food stores: Sainsbury’s and Lidl both of which
occupy edge-of-centre locations and from the NEMS survey appear to generate not insignificant
numbers of linked trips to and from the town centre. There is nothing within government policy
which suggests that the turnovers of edge-of-centre retail facilities should be suppressed in order to
support retail development in less central locations. In this respect, the approach in the appeal
decision from Digby, Exeter dated 4th March 1997, involving a mix of uses including the erection of
non-food retail warehousing, is pertinent. The Inspector in assessing the capacity for additional retail
warehouse floorspace addressed the issue of sales densities and whether it was appropriate to
depress them to gauge the quantitative need for additional floorspace. At paragraph 8.46 he concluded
that:
“There is no policy which suggests that the national average sales density should be
regarded as a standard or norm. Plainly, the national average will reflect relatively high
performances in some towns, such as Exeter; and lower performances in others. If additional
floorspace were to be provided in towns which perform well, so as to reduce their sales
density to the national average, the national average itself would fall.”
6.15
The Practice Guidance recognises that the:
“…extent to which the turnover of existing stores significantly exceeds benchmark turnovers may
be a qualitative indicator of need, and in some cases inform quantitative need considerations. For
example it may be an expression of the poor range of existing facilities or limited choice of stores
and a lack of new floorspace within a locality.”
(Paragraph 3.16)
6.16
We should also stress that the figures set out in Tables A to C are intended to be broad brush and should
not be applied uncritically when assessing the likely impact of the proposed store since they rely on
increasing market share and reducing the turnover levels within existing edge of centre stores.
6.17
Of course in examining the period to 2016 it is necessary to take into account the implications of
the Waitrose store which opened in November 2012. The store is estimated to achieve a convenience
goods turnover of £17.1m. Of this 85% was identified as likely to be drawn from the PCA and SCA. From
the three postcodes forming the PCA, it was estimated to draw £5.6m. We concluded in June 2012 that
the level of trade drawn from the PCA was too low and the level of in-flow too high. However
notwithstanding this view it is clear that in 2016 based on an 80% level of retention that there would be
between £8m-£9m of convenience goods expenditure available to support new floorspace. If more
appropriate levels of trade draw are assumed for the Waitrose store within the PCA the total available
expenditure is likely to be around £5m-£6m.
(iv)
Turnover of the proposed store
6.18
Table 4 of the RIA identifies the convenience and comparison goods turnover of the proposed store. In
terms of convenience goods this is estimated to be £30.42m in 2016 and £7.6m in terms of comparison
goods. Paragraph 4.1 states that the applies sales density reflect the principal foodstore operators.
6.19
Although the assumed convenience goods sales density of £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
24
6a.24
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
need considerations.”
6.20
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. which would generate a convenience goods turnover of
approximately £35.5m.
6.20
Notwithstanding this observation we have based our assessment on the turnover within the RIA. In this
context we note the suggestion at paragraph 9.7 of the RIA that in reality the proposed store would trade
below benchmark or company average levels to reflect the fact that Sainsbury’s, Lidl and local shops would
end up trading below average levels. This is not an argument with which we agree and in fact underlines
our concerns about the scale of out-of-centre floorspace proposed.
(v)
6.21
Impact
The RIA provides an estimate of the impact of the proposed development taking into account the
Waitrose store at Cromer Road. The analysis is undertaken in a two step process. The impact of
Waitrose in 2013 is modelled and then in 2016 the impact of the proposed development is then
estimated. Table 7 of the RIA summarises the impact which we set out below:
Store
Sainsbury’s
Lidl
Town
Centre
Waitrose
Proposed
store
Town
total
6.22
13
Benchmark
turnover
2013
£m
£24.6
£2.60
£29.8
Actual
turnover
2016
£m
£28.4
£4.30
£35.1
Proposed
store
turnover
£m
-
Solus
trade
diversion
Residual
turnover
£m
Cumulative
impact
%
30%
42%
32%
£19.30
£2.50
£24.0
82%
95%
81%
-
£18.7
-
£30.4
-
£14.2
£30.4
78%
-
£29.8
-
-
26%
£60.6
-
In placing these estimates in perspective it is worth noting that the pre-impact turnover of Sainsbury’s is
estimated to be approximately £36m. The Waitrose store is based on the RIA predicted to divert £8.5m
equating to an impact of 23.6% in 2013. The cumulative impact of the proposed store at Marricks Wire
Rope site would be a further £9.m in 2016 (Table 7a of the RIA) leading to a cumulative impact of £17.6m
(48.9% of the 2013 pre-impact turnover). This would mean that the store would trade at approximately
£19.3m in 2016 around £5.3m13 below company benchmark levels (Tables 5a and 5b of the RIA).
78% of benchmark levels as taken from table 7a.
25
6a.25
6.23
In respect of Lidl the impact of Waitrose would lead to a loss of £0.8m equating to an impact of 16% in
2013. The cumulative impact would equate to a loss of £2.63m equating to an impact of 52.6% in 2016
based on the 2013 pre-impact turnover). The RIA estimates that the store would trade just below
company average levels at approximately £2.5m.
6.24
In terms of the town centre as a whole14, Waitrose in isolation would lead to a loss of £9.47m equating to
an impact of 21.7% in 2013. The cumulative impact with the proposed store would equate to a loss of
£20.62m in 2016. This would equate to an impact of around 47%15.
6.25
In respect of comparison goods the store is predicted to divert approximately £3m from the town centre
equating to an impact of 11.9% in 2016. From Table 7b all the shops within the town centre including
Sainsbury’s would trade below benchmark levels.
(vi)
Assessment of trade diversion
6.25
The RIA concludes that although shops would trade below benchmark levels this would not necessarily
render them unviable.
6.26
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 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)
14
15
Sainsbury’s Lidl, Roys, local shops and the market.
Based on a pre-impact turnover of ££43.6m in 2013.
26
6a.26
Smaller centres which depend on convenience retailing are most at risk
6.27
In the case of North Walsham like many market towns, the centre’s robustness and vitality, depends to a
significant degree on convenience goods retailing for its underlying health. The telephone household
survey accompanying the Waitrose application tends to confirm that the existing food stores (Sainsbury’s
and Lidl) perform important functions in attracting people into the town and particularly the town centre.
However we note that none of the tabulations provide any information on the amount of linked shopping
and other trips which are likely to be associated with the two food stores. Indeed the RIA provides no
information on the impact of the loss of linked shopping trips as a consequence of the cumulative impact.
6.28
Based upon IGD research16 the proposed store particularly when taken in combination with Waitrose,
would offer clear attractions over town centre shops having regard to the preferences of supermarket
shoppers. It would:
provide free surface level car parking adjacent to the store.
provide an extensive range of convenience and comparison goods under one roof.
provide a more extensive selection of own label products.
be open for long hours relative to other shops.
provide a larger number of checkouts
be easy to get to by car being adjacent to the A149 Cromer Road obviating the need to travel
through a more congested town centre road network.
provide the opportunity to buy petrol on the same visit which cannot be achieved at
Sainsbury’s or Lidl.
6.29
In this respect it would provide a facility of at least equal quality to those offered by the existing food
stores and considerably improved relative to the smaller shops in the centre itself.
6.30
Having regard to the advice contained within Paragraph 26 of the Framework we comment as follows:
a. Impact on existing, committed and planned public and private investment
6.31
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. We are aware that Lidl
UK GmbH have undertaken pre-application discussions with the Council regarding a possible expansion of
its store in North Walsham in order to improve the quality of the shopping environment. The proposed
food store at Cromer Road would on a cumulative impact basis reduce Lidl’s turnover to below company
average levels and in our view this could act as a significant disincentive to further expansion.
6.32
More significant perhaps is the potential to deter the provision on the Paston College Lawns site. This
offers the potential to develop a food store and secure other benefits, which would be able to sustain and
enhance the vitality of the town centre through linked shopping and other trips. It would in our view be
significantly less likely that a large food store would be developed on this site if permission is given at
Marricks Wire Ropes site.
b. Impact on town centre vitality and viability including local consumer choice and trade in
the town centre and wider area
6.33
16
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. Paragraph D.34 of the Practice Guidance states:
‘UK Grocery Outlook Report’ (2007)
27
6a.27
“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.”
6.34
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 impact17. 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.
(i) Town centre trade
6.35
We have estimated that the cumulative impact on the town’s convenience goods sector would be
approximately 47% and this perhaps places in context the scale of the out-of-centre floorspace both
committed and proposed. The impact on the town’s total turnover i.e. in comparison and convenience
goods would be approximately £24.7m equating to an impact of around 35%. In our opinion this is a very
significant level of diversion which requires very close examination and this is not fully examined within the
RIA which fails to address what the diversion of so much expenditure from the main shopping area would
have ‘on the ground’ in terms of overall investment, choice and vitality. Moreover in the event that the
predicted turnover was higher then the impact would increase accordingly.
6.36
The RIA does not include a health check of the town. However one was submitted in support of the
Waitrose application. It noted that the proportion of convenience goods retailers in terms of number and
floorspace is above the national average based on all those centres surveyed by GOAD. This in part
reflects the inclusion of the Sainsbury and Lidl stores and Roys. Paragraph 1.8 of the health check identifies
smaller scale and largely independent retailers selling a range of food and convenience goods. These shops
add to the diversity of the centre and while they do not provide a main food destination they do
complement the ability of shoppers to undertake bulk food shopping in the edge of centre food stores. It
is also possible that these shops along with others in the town centre, benefit from the attraction
generated in particular by Sainsbury’s which affords free car parking for the first two hours. Certainly the
telephone household survey confirms that the local shops in North Walsham are particularly valued for
top-up shopping with almost 15% of respondents from postcode sector NR28 0 using them and a further
13% from sector NR28 9.
6.37
We attach as Appendix [6] a recent appeal decision relating to the erection of a 2,005 sq.m. net food
store in Barnoldswick, Lancashire18. The Council had already granted planning permission for a 3,244 sq.m.
gross foodstore on another site and the issue therefore was the likely cumulative impact of a second store
on the appeal site. The town contained a Co-op store of 741 sq.m. net.
6.38
The Inspector (Philip Asquith) recognised the benefits of introducing a large format foodstore by
increasing the level of expenditure retained within the local area (paragraph 12 of the DL). The Inspector
also acknowledged that the impact of large food stores were more likely to impact on similar stores
(paragraph 13 of the DL). The Appellants argued that both stores were likely to trade at below company
average levels. However the Inspector at paragraph 14 of the DL concluded:
“The imperative to increase market share and positioning would no doubt be significant
drivers and the fact that the stores would be trading at below benchmark would be likely to
17
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.
18
st
APP/E2340/A/12/2175946 dated 31 October 2012.
28
6a.28
lead them to very strongly competing for all available expenditure within the catchment
area.”
6.39
The Inspector also recognised that large out of centre stores were also likely to compete for top-up
shopping (paragraph 15 of the DL). The impact of reduced visits to the town centre was held to be a
material consideration with the spin off or linked trips to and from the town centre from the two larger
stores, judged unlikely to off-set the direct loss from the Co-op.
6.40
The Inspector concluded that there was a strong probability of a substantial impact on the vitality and
viability of the town centre undermining its current role as a focus for the community.
6.41
While we do not seek to argue that this appeal decision is on ‘all fours’ with the situation in North
Walsham, there are certain parallels. The town centre is anchored by the Sainsbury’s and Lidl stores and
the weekly market is also an added attraction together with a range of independent traders. The proposed
store would need to achieve unsustainably high levels of expenditure within the PCA and even a small
change in the adopted assumptions can lead to significant scale of the predicted impact. In this respect we
recognise that predicting the likely impact is not an exact science and relies on making assumptions and
applying professional judgement.
6.42
This was recognised by an Inspector (Mel Middleton) in respect of 3,529 sq.m19. food store in Todmorden,
West Yorkshire20 (see Appendix [7]). Initially the scheme was supported by J Sainsbury’s but Asda
Stores Ltd was ultimately the preferred occupier. At paragraph 21 the Inspector recognised the need to
ensure that the catchment area was appropriately defined and in the event that if the level of trade
diversion or attraction of trade from outside the defined area was less than assumed, then more trade
would need to be diverted from shops within the catchment including the town centre. The need to have
an understanding of retail floorspace capacity was recognised as being relevant in informing a
consideration of the likely impact (paragraph 36 of the DL).
6.43
Many town centre traders will trade at very small net margins so that the loss of even a limited proportion
of their turnover will 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
19
20
In our view despite the claims to the contrary within the RIA, the cumulative impact would be likely to
have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre. At a time when town
centre’s are under particularly pressure from the economic downturn, the rise of internet shopping and
the expansion of out-of-centre stores, we believe that the scale of the proposed store is excessive and
would have a materially harmful impact on the town centre.
Convenience goods: 1,335 sq.m.; Comparison goods: 557 sq.m.
th
APP/A4710/A/12/2171556 dated 14 November 2012.
29
6a.29
7.0
ASSESSMENT AGAINST PLANNING POLICY
(i)
7.1
North Norfolk Core Strategy (September 2008)
The CS sets out an overall vision for North Walsham which seeks to ensure that it:
“…will have a vibrant town centre with a broader range of shops and services meeting the
needs of a wide catchment and adding to the attractions of the town as a tourist destination. The
town will also fulfil a role as an employment, learning and training centre for a wide area,
supported by the links provided by the Bittern Line Railway. New development will have enhanced
the historic market town character and aided regeneration, ensuring that
community needs are met. Additional housing that helps to meet the needs of local people will
have been provided in locations that are well related to the existing built-up area.”
7.2
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. Policy SS1
Identifies North Walsham as a Principal Settlement where the majority of new housing and commercial
development will take place. Policy SS5 also identifies it as a Large Town Centre and Policy SS10
encapsulates both designations. It refers to the need to identify sites capable of accommodating
approximately 4,000 sq.m. of comparison goods floorspace. No reference is made to the need to identify
sites for convenience goods on the basis that no quantitative need was predicted in the 2005 RLS.
7.3
The scheme 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 North Walsham town
centre nor improve its vitality and viability. Indeed the cumulative impact is predicted to be very
substantial.
7.4
Policy EC5 is a key policy since it sets out the test applicable to retail development. Paragraph 3.4.17
states that North Walsham is considered to be one of the most appropriate locations for large scale retail
development since it contains one of the main centres of population, has better quality public transport
and a critical mass to encourage joint shopping trips. It also provides opportunities for development within
its centre.
7.5
The policy requires retail proposals with a net sales area of greater than 750 sq.m. to be located within a
defined Primary Shopping Area. The application involving a net sales area of 3,623 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 and comparison goods expenditure
generated within the town’s PCA. However the convenience goods need or capacaity has in our view
been largely met by the Waitrose store at Cromer Road.
Sequential approach: For the reasons given in section 5 we are not convinced that the Applicants have
submitted sufficient information for us to be able to confirm compliance with the sequential approach to
site selection. This applies to the Lawns site part of Paston College. This has been identified as potentially
available and suitable for the development of a large format food store with car parking. The PS makes no
reference to this site.
Impact: It is inevitable that the introduction of a large food store would have an impact on the town
centre and the trading levels within the main stores, particularly Sainsbury’s and Lidl. The test is whether
this would be significantly adverse. The RIA concludes that all town centre stores in both convenience and
comparison goods would trade below benchmark levels in contrast with the position post-Waitrose
30
6a.30
where they would all trade at above average levels. The magnitude of the diversion based on even the
Applicant’s own figures is substantial.
Accessibility: We have not specifically addressed this issue in any detail. The site is not particularly
accessible by a choice of means of transport and is significantly less accessible than more central sites.
(ii)
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012
7.6
Section 12 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 unable to confirm that the information submitted in support of
the application allows us to conclude that this is met. Consequently it does not comply with paragraph 27
of the Framework.
7.8
With regard to impact we believe that the impact would be likely to be significant and in our view the
scheme when assessed on a cumulative impact basis does not comply with paragraph 27 of the NPPF.
7.9
The scheme would have a materially negative impact on the town centre which would include a reduction
in trade within the centre itself and more significantly from food stores located in edge of centre locations.
Although it would increase the overall level of trade retained within the town as a whole, the main
shopping areas anchored in particular by Sainsbury’s and Lidl would be substantially diminished in their
effectiveness.
(iv) Policy position on section 106 contributions
7.10
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.
7.11
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.
7.12
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. The correct policy test in respect of this issue
is set out within Policy EC 5 of the CS and at paragraph 27 of the NPPF. These require a scheme to be
judged to have a significant adverse impact. While the latter according to the Practice Guidance is a matter
for the decision maker i.e. the Council, to assess having regard to local circumstances, it places the impact
threshold at a higher level than simply by reference to whether it would be detrimental i.e. negative or
beneficial i.e. positive.
31
6a.31
7.13
We have concluded on the basis of the submitted information that the scheme is likely to have a significant
adverse impact on the town centre. In our judgement this would occur at such a level and across a wide
variety of retail outlets as to be incapable of being mitigated by town centre improvements funded by the
Applicant. Certainly the RIA makes no attempt to identify what scheme could be brought forward to
mitigate the trade diversion.
32
6a.32
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 shall be limited to
3,623 sq.m. net. Not more than 1,087 sq.m. net shall be used for the sale of comparison goods.
33
6a.33
9.0
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
9.1
In accordance with our instruction from the Council we have reviewed the PS and RIA submitted in
support of the planning application.
9.2
We have had regard to previous advice provided to the Council in respect of planning application No.
PF/12/0310 relating to the occupation of the former Focus DIY store by Waitrose. This permission has
been implemented and the store is open and trading.
9.3
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. Although no retailer is
specifically linked to the scheme it seems likely that one of the major retailers would occupy the
development give its size and scale. This would generally be consistent with the government’ support for
creating employment opportunities and increasing 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.
9.4
Such objectives nonetheless require compliance with two key retail tests. The first is in respect of site
selection. The second relates to impact.
9.5
With regard to the assessment of alternative sites we agree that the majority of these can be discounted.
However the submitted PS fails to examine the potential to accommodate a large food store on the
Paston College Lawn site. The latter is clearly sequentially preferable and offers the potential for linked
and other trips to and from the primary shopping area of the town. Initial work undertaken by consultants
on behalf of the Council had identified this site as a significant retail opportunity which appears to be
physically capable of accommodating a food store of approximately 5,000 sq.m. gross.
9.6
On this basis we are unable to confirm on the basis of the submitted information that the scheme
complies with the sequential approach as set out within Policy EC5 of the Core Strategy and with
paragraphs 24 and 27 of the NPPF.
9.8
In respect of the impact on the town centre we conclude that the submitted assessment fails to provide
sufficient information to enable us to conclude that it would not be likely to have a significant impact on
the town centre. In particular the cumulative impact when taken in combination with the Waitrose store
would suppress trading levels within the town centre and the main food stores to unacceptable levels. The
Sainsbury’s store would experience very dramatic reductions in turnover along with the Lidl supermarket
and both of these stores are important in maintaining and enhancing the vitality and viability of the town
centre. We are therefore unable to conclude that the scheme complies with Policy EC5 of the Core
Strategy and paragraph 26 of the NPPF.
34
6a.34