Audit of Retail Report
In support of
Section 73 Application
Removal of Condition No. 15
and
Variation of Condition 16
Imposed on Planning Permission No. 20011523
Former Focus DIY store
Cromer Road
North Walsham
Prepared on Behalf
of
North Norfolk District Council
June 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
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
11
6.0
IMPACT
21
7.0
ASSESSMENT AGAINST PLANNING POLICY
35
8.0
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS
38
9.0
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
39
List of appendices (bound at the rear)
Appendix [1]
Appendix [2]
Appendix [3]
Appendix [4]
Appendix [5]
Appendix [6]
Appendix [7]
Appendix [8]
Appendix [9]
UK grocery market.
Catchment zones associated with the Retail and Commercial Leisure Study (2005).
GOAD catchment reports for North Walsham, Sheringham, Swaffham,
Wymondham and Stamford.
Summary of GOAD catchment area reports for each town.
Site plan of Vicarage Street car park and adjoining land.
Secretary of State’s decision in respect of Worksop (2011).
0-10 and 0-20 drive time isochrones from North Walsham together with Target Pro
reports from Experian.
0-10 minute drive time catchments from Cromer, Aylsham, Stalham and Hoveton.
Population and expenditure estimates for main postcodes supplied by Experian.
2
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
MWA has accepted an instruction from North Norfolk District Council (the ‘Council’) to review the
retail issues associated with a planning application (No. PF/12/0310) which seeks the deletion of
condition 15 imposed on outline planning permission No. 20011523 dated 13th August 2002. The
planning application also seeks the variation of condition 16 imposed on the same permission.
1.2
The planning application is accompanied by a ‘Retail Report’ (RR) prepared by Firstplan, agents on
behalf of Waitrose Ltd and the London and Capital Group. We have focused our comments on the
analysis and conclusions set out in that report.
1.3
In addition we have had regard to letters submitted by the following:
-
Martin Robeson Planning Practice on behalf of Petros (North Walsham) Ltd.
-
Scott Properties Ltd dated 15th May 2012: This company refers to an ‘impending’ planning
application relating to a 5,574 sq.m. gross (60,000 sq.ft.) store with petrol filling station on the
former Marrick’s Wire Ropes (MWR) site on Cromer Road, North Walsham.
-
Lidl Uk GmbH
1.4
In a letter dated 17th May from the agents (Firstplan), a response to the comments submitted in both
of these letters has been submitted and we have considered its contents.
1.5
We have also examined the observations submitted by Councillor Eric Seward in an email dated 29th
April 2012.
1.6
In preparing our report we have made visits to North Walsham and the adjoining towns.
1.7
Our report addresses the following:
-
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.
3
2.0
SITE LOCATION AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(i) Site location
2.1
Section 2 of the RR describes the location of the site noting that it lies on the northern edge of the
built up area and contains a vacant DIY store extending to 2,610 sq.m. gross together with a garden
centre of 952 sq.m. It notes that the site lies approximately 1.6kms (1 mile from the town centre).
2.2
The total site area is not provided. However we estimate that it extends to approximately 1.0ha.
2.3
The Transport Assessment provided by Glanville Consultants in support of the planning application
notes in Section 9 that two kilometres1 is considered to be an acceptable distance to walk to work
or nearby facilities and amenities. On this basis it is concluded that the site is accessible on foot from
the whole of North Walsham. It also notes that the nearest bus stop is 575m to the south-east on
Cromer Road (A149).
2.4
In the context of national advice within Annex 2 of the Framework we conclude that the application
site:
Involves previously developed land.
Involves an out of centre location which is not within or on the edge2 of North
Walsham town centre but is within the urban area.
(ii) The proposed development
2.5
Condition 15 imposed on outline planning permission No. 20011523 states:
“The retail warehouse/garden centre hereby permitted shall not be used other than for the
sale of DIY goods, garden goods and associated products (which may include power tools,
secondary sales of kitchen and bathroom furniture, bulky ‘white’ electrical goods and floor
coverings) and the building shall not be sub-divided into separate retail outlets.”
2.6
The reason for the condition is:
“In order to protect the viability and vitality of North Walsham town centre”
2.7
Condition 16 imposed on the outline permission states:
“With the exception of the permitted DIY store/garden centre and coach park, all
other uses on the site shall fall within the definitions of Classes B1 and B8 of the
Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.”
2.8
The reason for the condition is:
“For the avoidance of doubt and to accord with the expressed intentions of the
applicant/agent.”
2.9
The letter submitted with the planning application and dated 7th March 2012, states that condition 15
is proposed to be deleted in its entirety and condition 16 be amended to read as follows:
1
Based on former guidance within PPG13 Transport.
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.
2
4
“With the exception of the permitted retail store and coach park, all other uses on the
site shall fall within the definitions of Classes B1 and B8 of the Schedule to the Town
and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.”
2.10
As far as we can gauge the Applicants do not seek to restrict the nature of goods sold from the
store since deleting condition 15 will effectively allow the sale of any goods from the unit. Similarly
the Applicants do not explicitly seek to limit the net (sales) area devoted to the sale of convenience
and comparison goods.
2.11
In respect of the trading area proposed, the RR refers to an area of 1,830 sq.m. It is not clear
whether this includes the checkouts. 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.”
2.12
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
5
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.”
2.13
The scheme also proposes the introduction of a coffee shop extending to 120 sq.m. with a capacity
for 40 covers. It is suggested that this would not provide a full restaurant facility but rather would
provide a facility for customers to have a drink and a sandwich. Although we note this comment it
would in practice be difficult to seek to ensure that it operated as a coffee shop as opposed to a
more fully developed café/restaurant operation.
2.14
As part of the overall plans for the site we also note that the Transport Assessment proposes the
provision of new bus stops on the A149 near to the site access. These would be provided on either
side of the road with an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing incorporating a central refuge. A new
crossing facility across the site access road is also proposed to assist customers seeking to walk to
and from North Walsham town centre. However there is no evidence to indicate the proportion of
shoppers who would walk to and from the town centre.
2.15
A Travel Plan is also proposed to improve the proportion of staff and shoppers using non-car means
of transport to access the site.
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 and Waitrose 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
Section 3 of the RR report identifies the strength and growth of the John Lewis Partnership of which
Waitrose forms a part. The proposal in North Walsham is consistent with the company’s plans to
increase market share across the country and particularly in this part of Norfolk with the next
nearest stores being sited in Norwich, Swaffham and Wymondham.
3.3
The scheme is predicted to deliver 150 employment opportunities (full and part time) consistent
with the growth in this sector of the UK’s economy.
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 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 northeast (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.
8
Convenience Offer – North Walsham has an above average representation of
outlets (10%), benchmarked against the national average of 7%. The town is a
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
9
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. 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 nonresidents 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.
10
5.0
THE ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES
(i) Introduction
5.1
Section 6 of the RR examines four alternatives sites in and around North Walsham. The assessment
is based on the following parameters:
The need to accommodate a food store of 1,830 sq.m. net together with a 120 sq.m.
coffee shop, together with at least 600 sq.m. for warehousing, office and staff (partner)
facilities together with 150 adjoining parking spaces.
A minimum site area of 0.81ha (2 acres).
The non-viability of constructing a brand new store.
5.2
In respect of this last consideration the RR states that given the demographics of the area, it would
not be cost effective for Waitrose to build a new store. No information is submitted to support this
statement which we find unconvincing in the context of the company’s decision to build new stores
in other areas. Moreover it appears to be at odds with the statement in paragraph 3.14 of the RR
that the company has had a long established ambition to be represented in North Norfolk having
failed to secure planning permission for a ‘new’ store in Sheringham. Paragraph 3.15 of the RR also
states that the catchment contains sufficient population (and we must assume spend per head within
the socio-economic profile) to support a Waitrose store.
5.3
In this regard we have obtained catchment area profiles for North Walsham, Swaffham,
Wymondham, Sheringham and Stamford from Goad to assess the catchment area profiles and
population levels. These are attached as Appendix [3].
5.4
For North Walsham GOAD record a catchment population in 2001 of 44,136 although this also
appears to extend into Cromer. By 2012 the population is predicted to have increased to 47,995.
5.5
Comparing the town with other locations where Waitrose operate or where the company wished
to trade (Sheringham) a summary of the position is set out in Appendix [4]. It is not clear from
this information and the statements within the RR, that the company would not be able to finance
and operate from a new store within the North Walsham area.
(ii) The adopted approach
5.6
Section 4 of the RR sets out relevant policy considerations and we comment further on this in
section 6. At the time the report was written national guidance on retail development and town
centre uses was set out in PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (December 2009). The
publication in March 2012 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) abolished PPS4
although the Practice Guidance which accompanied it remains extant.
5.7
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.”
11
5.8
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 133, 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.
5.9
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-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.”
5.10
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.”
5.11
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.
5.12
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 [6]. 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-
3
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.
12
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.
(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
Four sites have been assessed and the analysis is contained with Appendix 9 of the RR. We examine
each in turn.
Site A: Vicarage Street car
park
Comments
1. Site area
The site extends to 0.36ha and is therefore below the minimum
size of 0.81ha stated to be required by the company in being able
to develop a store of approximately1,950 sq.m. net (including
coffee shop).
However the analysis does not include the potential to include
adjoining land uses:
-
Foundry Cars (car dealership)
St Johns Ambulance
Adjoining residential properties
Commercial depot along Mundesley Road
From the site plan attached as Appendix [5], we estimate 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.
13
2. Availability
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
We do not accept the conclusion of the RR that because it “is in
active use as an essential town centre car park” it is not likely to
become available in the foreseeable future. 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 RR refers to the inability of the site to accommodate a mixed
use development and we agree that the development of a single
large food store would not provide scope to accommodate other
uses.
However the inclusion of the adjoining land coupled with the
potential to operate a split level store i.e. incorporating a coffee
shop on a mezzanine, may provide scope to develop a food store
along with adjoining car parking. In addition a slightly reduced store
would demonstrate flexibility in the scale of development while
maintaining the underlying format.
Moreover although the DPD refers to the need for any retail
development to be compatible in scale with the town centre, we
do not believe that this would rule out the development of a
modern food store given the clear linkage between the Sainsbury’s
food store and the town centre. Indeed part of paragraph 8.7.3
states:
“Redevelopment could provide the opportunity to generate
stronger links between the supermarket and the town centre
and pedestrian links between the two should be enhanced to
encourage shoppers to visit the town centre.”
14
4. Viability
5. Overall conclusions
The Sainsbury’s food store is already well connected by a surface
level walkway which is also accessible by cyclists and those with
mobility difficulties.
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 are not convinced that the information submitted in the RR
would allow us to discount this site when taken in conjunction with
adjoining land, as being unavailable or unsuited to the development
of a modern food store of the scale proposed at Cromer Road.
Site B: 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. We agree.
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
15
edge of centre sites are available, preference should be “given to
accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre.”
The RR notes that the site is located over 500m from the town’s
primary shopping area which is approximately half the distance
applicable to the former Focus store at Cromer Road.
Notwithstanding paragraph 8.1.4 of the DPD we do not believe
that adequate consideration has been given to the suitability of this
site to accommodate the size of food store proposed at Cromer
Road. In particular to reject it simply on the basis that a food store
would not comprise small scale convenience retailing fails to reflect
the conclusion of the RR that a Waitrose store at Cromer Road
would not have a significantly adverse impact on the vitality and
viability of the centre.
4. Viability
5. Overall conclusions
The RR does not seek to argue that a food store on this site would
be unviable and we agree.
In accordance with the Secretary of State’s decision in Worksop
(APP/A3010/A/10/2124458) which is attached as Appendix [6] 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.”
16
Site C: St Nicholas
Precinct
Comments
1. Site area
2. Availability
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.
3. Suitability
4. Viability
5. Overall conclusions
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 RR concludes that redevelopment of the site is likely to prove
unviable given the nature of the existing uses, the need for a high
quality design given the site’s location within the town’s
conservation area and proximity to the grade I listed St Nicholas
church, together with limitations to the highway network. We
agree with these conclusions
We do not believe this site is available, suitable or viable.
17
Site D: Community
Centre/Library/Fire Station
Comments
1. Site area
2. Availability
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.
3. Suitability
We note the comments that the site being in active use renders it
unavailable. However as the Council will be aware from its
consideration of the proposed supermarket in Sheringham, it is
possible to assemble sites which have a range of uses to enable
redevelopment provided alternative provision can be made.
The site lies within the town centre and we do not accept that the
site would be unsuitable for the development of a food store. At
approximately 0.7ha (excluding the adjoining post office which
might be capable of being incorporated into any redevelopment
scheme). It would lie in closer proximity to the primary shopping
area than the Lidl supermarket and Sainsbury’s store and from
observation visitors to the central shopping area also visit the post
office and the library.
We note that the Applicants do not claim that the site is too small
to accommodate the size of store required and while the issue of
servicing and access would need to be addressed, the site already
benefits from a main access onto New Road.
4. Viability
5. Conclusions
On the other hand 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.
It is claimed that redevelopment would not be viable given the cost
of relocating the existing uses. While the cost of redeveloping this
site as opposed to re-occupying the former Focus store, would be
more expensive we cannot place a great deal of reliance on the
statement that it would not be viable without additional evidence
being provided.
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. Nonetheless it is approximately
the right size based on the criteria used in the RR and its location
makes it eminently suitable for the development of retail floorspace
very close to the primary shopping area and within the town
centre boundary.
18
The addition of the adjoining sorting office (above) and/or post
office might increase the ability to produce a workable scheme.
(v) Overall conclusions
5.15
We appreciate that Waitrose Ltd has secured a 20 year lease to operate from the former Focus
store and would enable the beneficial re-use of a previously developed and vacant site within the
settlement boundary. We also note the statement that the development of a new store would not
be viable. In the absence of further evidence to corroborate this statement, we have assumed that
the company would having regard to its desire to improve representations within the North Norfolk
area, be prepared to consider occupying a new build in an appropriate location.
5.16
In setting out our comments on the four sites examined we have borne in mind the advice within the
Practice Guidance. 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.”
5.17
On the basis of the submitted information we are unable to discount sites A and D which lie on the
edge of the primary shopping area. Further information from the Applicants on the inability to
produce a workable scheme on Site A would be helpful in resolving this matter. In respect of Site D
further information on the non-viability of a redevelopment would also be of assistance since we
cannot conclude that the available area and its location make it inherently unsuited to the
development of a 2,500-3,000 sq.m. food store.
5.18
The need to adequately discount edge of centre sites is reinforced by the conclusions of the
Leadership of Place report relating to North Walsham (July 2011). This stresses the need if possible
to focus on the town centre environment and improve the retail offer thereby enhancing its vitality
and viability.
5.19
In respect of site B (former HL Foods site), there is a requirement under paragraph 24 of the
Framework to adequately assess other out of centre sites in respect of whether they have equal or
better accessibility compared with the application site with particular reference to the connectivity
with the town centre and the propensity for forming links thereto. It is arguable that Site B is better
related to a larger proportion of the resident population and is located close to the town’s main
19
railway station. Since the RR does not address this particular aspect of paragraph 24 we would
welcome further information from the Applicants in order that an adequate comparison could be
made.
20
6.0
IMPACT
(i) Introduction
6.1
Section 7 of the RR deals with Impact Considerations. It is based on the superseded policy
background set out in PPS4 and we do not comment therefore on the various impact tests formerly
contained in Policy EC10.2 of the PPS.
6.2
Former Policy EC16 in PPS4 set out the criterion which should be applied to assessing the impact of
a main town centre use which did not lie within an existing centre and which did not accord with the
development plan. This has been superseded by national advice set out within paragraph 26 of the
Framework. This identifies two main considerations:
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.
6.3
The first criterion is similar to the test set out in Policy EC16.1a of PPS4. The second is similar in
form to that set out within Policy EC16.1b of the PPS.
6.4
The RR states that the proposed development is intended to provide local residents of North
Walsham with a new store of a size, offer and quality that can provide customers with choice
alongside the existing Sainsbury’s. It notes that North Walsham serves a wide rural hinterland and it
is predicted that the store will attract shoppers from a wide area, observing that Waitrose stores
typically draw from a larger area than other grocery retailers.
(ii) Catchment area
6.5
The catchment area is based on a 20 minute drive time which has been amended to correspond to
12 main postcode sectors. We have checked the 0-10 and 0-20 minute drive time using Experian’s
Micromarketer software and the results are set out in Appendix [7]. These show a 10 minute and
20 minute off-peak drive times.
6.6
Within the 0-10 minute drive time area it was estimated to contain a resident population of 17,629
in 2010 rising to 18,764 in 2016.
6.7
For the 0-20 minute drive time catchment it was estimated to contain 56,223 people in 2010 rising
to 59,081 in 2016.
6.8
The area set out in Appendix 5 of the RR is somewhat larger than the 20 minute drive time
boundary and we assumed that this must reflect the precise boundaries of the postcode sectors at
the outer edge.
6.9
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.
21
6.10
In this regard we attach as Appendix [8], 0-10 minute drive time catchment areas for Cromer,
Aylsham, Hoveton and Stalham. It can be seen that these areas 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.
6.11
The study uses the results of a telephone household survey conducted by NEMS. 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.
6.12
From the results of Q1 of the telephone household survey it is clear that the Sainsbury’s store
within North Walsham primarily draws its main food shopping trade from the following postcodes:
-
6.13
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%)
6.14
The Lidl store mainly draws from NR28 0 and NR28 9,
6.15
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.
6.16
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.
(iii) Population and expenditure
6.17
The RR uses population and expenditure derived from Experian TargetPro reports produced in
November 2011. The population within the identified catchment is predicted to increase from
72,764 in 2010 to 77,675 in 2016.
6.18
We have cross-checked this information using our Micromarketer software both in respect of the
20 minute drive time and individual postcode sectors. The results are contained in Appendix [9].
These match those set out within the RR and we therefore believe that these are representative of
the study area.
6.19
The expenditure per capita at the base year of 2010 (2010 prices) has been projected forward with a
reduction in 2011/12 and then a per annum growth rate of 0.5% until 2016. These are based on
Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 9 (September 2011) and we believe that they are reasonable.
22
(iv) Capacity for additional convenience floorspace
6.20
The RR provides an estimate of the future capacity for additional convenience goods floorspace
within the study area. This is based on estimating the benchmark or company average turnovers of
the main food stores within the catchment area (Table 5) and then comparing this with the total
available in 2013 (Table 6). The benchmark turnovers are based on company averages published by
Mintel (The Retail Rankings).
6.21
Table 6 of the RR predicts that there would be a potential ‘surplus’ of convenience goods
expenditure in 2013 of £31.1m. We do not believe that the analysis is sufficiently robust to place any
great reliance on this prediction in respect of North Walsham and the current proposal for the
following reasons:
The turnover attributable to Local Shops is substantially underestimated given that this
must include all the convenience goods floorspace within the centres of North
Walsham, Cromer, Aylsham, Stalham and the numerous smaller centres which are all
located within the catchment area. Additionally smaller villages shops and individual
stores within the urban areas should also be included to obtain a representative estimate
of their turnover Adopting a figure of £5m as the benchmark turnover for such
floorspace is in our opinion far too low and has not been substantiated. Indeed a
comparison of this figure with the £8.5 attributed to this additional floorspace within the
RR supports our view that it has been underestimated. There is little evidence to
indicate that turnover of the individual town and village centre shops are overtrading to
any significant degree.
The assessment relates to the whole of the catchment area and does not relate to
North Walsham. It cannot be concluded that this expenditure would be available to
support a new store in the North Walsham area or indeed in any one of the other
centres within the catchment area. Indeed the close proximity of the 10 minute drive
times suggests that the predicted surplus is more likely to be split between the towns of
Cromer, Aylsham, Stalham and Hoveton in addition to North Walsham.
No allowance is made for improvements in floorspace efficiency levels i.e. the need for
existing floorspace to achieve some improvement in sales to support rising operational
costs.
6.22
In order to place the estimate in perspective we have defined a Primary Catchment Area (PCA) for
North Walsham based on the results of the telephone household survey. This comprises the
following main postcodes:
-
6.23
NR11 7
NR28 0
NR28 9
Postcode sectors NR28 0 and NR28 9 broadly equate to the 0-10 minute drive time comprising
17,629 residents in 2010. Postcode sector NR11 7 contained 2,893 people in 2010.
23
Table A: Available convenience goods expenditure within PCA 2010-2016
1. Total resident population
2. Total convenience goods
expenditure by residents £ms
3. Non-resident expenditure based
on 10% of resident expenditure
£ms4
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)5
6. Retention %
6.24
2010
2016
Change 2010-16
19,207
36.6
20,946
40.8
+1,739
+4.2
3.7
4.1
+0.4
40.3
44.9
+4.6
30.2
33.7
+3.5
10.1
27.9
11.2
31.1
+1.1
+3.2
69.3
69.3
0.0
These figures are based on the actual turnover level achieved within existing stores and is 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:
4
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.
5
Includes expenditure attracted to the town centre and the main food stores from the three main postcodes.
24
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)6
6. Convenience goods turnover
of existing retailers
7. Retention %
8. Increase in retention rate –
surplus expenditure (£ms)
- 75%
- 80%7
6.25
6
7
2010
2016
Change 2010-16
19,207
36.6
20,946
40.8
+1,739
+4.2
3.7
4.1
+0.4
40.3
44.9
+4.6
30.2
33.7
+3.5
10.1
27.9
11.2
31.1
+1.1
+3.2
27.9
28.2
+0.3
69.2
62.8
-6.4
Nil
Nil
5.5
12.2
+5.5
+12.2
In the event that benchmark turnovers are used in the assessment the following position results:
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.
25
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)8
6. Benchmark convenience
goods turnover of existing
retailers
7. Retention %
8. Increase in retention
rate – surplus expenditure
(£ms)
- 75%
- 80%
6.26
2010
2016
Change 2010-16
19,207
20,946
+1,739
36.6
40.8
+4.2
3.7
4.1
+0.4
40.3
44.9
+4.6
30.2
33.7
+3.5
10.1
11.2
+1.1
27.9
31.1
+3.2
19.9
20.1
+0.2
49.4
44.8
-4.6
Nil
Nil
13.6
15.8
+13.6
+15.8
On the basis of this 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.
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
8
Includes expenditure attracted to the town centre and the main food stores from the three main postcodes.
26
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.”
6.27
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)
6.28
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.
(v) Existing trading patterns
6.29
Our assessment of the results of the telephone household survey confirm that both the Sainsbury’s
and Lidl stores in North Walsham are trading at above company average levels. Our visits to these
stores tends to confirm that this is the position although we did not experience an excessive or
uncomfortable shopping environment.
6.30
The Morrisons food store in Cromer is currently trading well but this position will be dramatically
affected following the opening of the Tesco store in Sheringham and the store is then in combination
with the proposed Lidl supermarket, trade at around company norms.
6.31
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.”
6.32
The RR at Appendix 8 sets out a summary of the nature and location of the main stores but there is
little within these assessments to corroborate the predicted turnover levels within them.
(vi) Turnover of the proposed store
6.33
Table 1 at Appendix 10 of the RR sets out the estimated convenience and comparison goods
turnover of the Waitrose store. This is predicted to achieve a convenience goods turnover of
£17.1m in 2013 and a comparison goods turnover of £1.7m at the same date. Of these totals, 85% is
27
proposed to be drawn from the study area equating to £14.5m in convenience goods and £1.4m of
comparison goods.
6.34
The convenience and comparison goods turnovers appear reasonable and in this regard we believe it
is appropriate to assess the scheme based on the named operator.
(vii) Trade diversion
6.35
Table 8 of the RR sets out the predicted levels of trade which would be diverted from existing
stores/ centres. This also takes into account the predicted impacts of the committed retail
developments in Sheringham (Tesco) and Cromer (Lidl). The headline results are as follows:
Centre/store
Pre-impact
turnover
£ms
Diversion to
Waitrose
£ms
Cumulative
Diversion
£ms
Impact (%)
36.7
0.5
5.1
1.5
5.5
0.0
0.2
0.0
6.2
0.0
0.4
0.0
16.9%
0.0%
7.8%
0.0%
38.5
3.3
5.6
3.5
0.0
0.0
8.7
0.9
0.0
22.6%
27.3%
0.0%
19.9
2.0
0.9
0.0
2.3
0.0
11.6%
0.0%
A. North
Walsham
1. Sainsbury’s
2. Roys
3. Lidl
4. North Walsham
Town centre
B. Cromer
Morrisons
Co-op
Other
C. Aylsham
Tesco
Other
6.36
The assessment assumes that £10.8m of the proposed Waitrose store’s turnover would be derived
from shopping centres/stores within the catchment area. A further £3.7m would be clawed back
from centre/stores further afield particularly in the Norwich area. In addition a further £2.6m would
be derived from tourists or residents living outside the catchment area.
6.37
In making any assessment of the level of trade likely to be diverted various judgements have to be
made and we agree with the comment that in general similar types of store trade against similar
facilities i.e. ‘like competes with like’.
6.38
We have no doubt that the largest impact will fall on the existing Sainsbury’s store. In our view the
level of trade likely to be diverted from stores and shops in North Walsham will be greater than that
predicted because:
The assumption that £3.7m will be clawed back from other centres/facilities on the northern
edge of Norwich appears to be generous. Table 7 of the RR indicates that the total convenience
28
goods expenditure being spent in the larger food stores in the Norwich area is £7.2m. These are
likely to be considerably more accessible to some residents in the PCA and offer an extensive
range of large stores. The assumption that around 51% of this expenditure can be reclaimed by a
single Waitrose store in North Walsham is in our view unrealistic.
The Sainsbury’s and Lidl stores are the principal food stores serving North Walsham. Their preeminence is reflected in their market share and strong trading performance and the introduction
of another food store operated by a national grocery retailer will inevitably impact on their
market share for both main food and top up shopping. The RR assumes that from postcode
sectors NR28 0 and NR28 9 £4m would be diverted from Sainsbury’s and £02m from Lidl. We
believe that theses estimates are likely to understate the trade draw given the pre-eminence of
these two stores. Making an adjustment for this factor and for reducing the clawback to £1.5m
we believe that the impact on Sainsbury’s is likely to be a minimum of £7.8m (solus) and £8.5m
(cumulative). The impact on Lidl is likely to be nearer £1.3m (solus) and £1.7m (cumulative)
The impact on the town centre is predicted to be nil. Again we do not believe that this is
realistic for the reasons we provide below.
6.39
We do not wholly agree with the predicted impact on Cromer since these do not accord fully with
our previous advice to the Council. However we have not sought to examine this further in the light
of the fact that the main impact will fall on the Morrisons store which lies in an out of centre
location.
(viii) Assessment of trade diversion
6.40
The RR concludes that no significant impact on the town centre would result. We believe that this
conclusion requires further scrutiny.
6.41
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).
29
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
6.42
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 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. Paragraph 7.58 of the RR
states that a large proportion of shopper’s to Sainsbury’s do not undertake a linked shopping trip but
this is not quantified and we cannot verify it. Moreover it is not clear that shoppers to that store do
not undertake some other form of linked trip which might not be shopping based but relies on using
the centres services and other facilities.
6.43
Based upon IGD research9 the proposed store 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.
6.44
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.
6.45
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
6.46
9
We are not aware of any existing or committed public and private sector investment 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 inevitably reduce to some degree the turnover levels within the Lidl
store. The estimated level indicates a store which is trading very well compared with company
averages and this is perhaps indicative of the desire of the company to increase its retail floor area.
‘UK Grocery Outlook Report’ (2007)
30
6.47
We estimate that the proposed Waitrose store would allow the Lidl store to remain trading in
excess of company norms although not to the levels currently experienced. Lidl has stated in its
letter of 17th April 2012 that it does not object in principle to the proposed development but
stresses the need for the vitality and viability of the town centre to be maintained. While granting
permission for a new Waitrose store might lead to Lidl re-assessing the appropriateness of
undertaking an extension to its store, this is not expressly stated in the company’s letter. Moreover
the residual turnover within the store would ensure that it also continued to trade well. On balance
therefore we do not believe that the proposed Waitrose store would materially undermine the
possibility of Lidl expanding its edge of centre store.
6.48
Consequently in the event that the two edge of centre sites are ruled unsuitable, unavailable or not
viable for the scale of food store proposed, then we do not believe that it would undermine
committed or planned investment in the town centre.
b. Impact on town centre vitality and viability including local consumer choice and
trade in the town centre and wider area
6.49
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:
“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.”
6.50
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 impact10. 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
6.51
Taking this stage in a series of steps we believe that there would inevitably be some reduction in
trade from within convenience goods shops within the town centre. The RR states that no diversion
at all would occur notwithstanding the comments at paragraph 7.55 of the report that there is often
concern that a Waitrose store might compete more directly for trade with independent
convenience traders due to its reputation for selling high quality specialist food and convenience
goods products. Examples are given of the impact of stores in Swaffham and Stamford.
6.52
Since the RR provides no indication that any diversion would occur we are unable to comment
further. We note that paragraph 7.46 states that small independent retailers will not experience a
‘material’ impact on their turnovers. In fact from Table 8 no direct impact on any local shops or
villages centres is predicted. In our opinion it is unrealistic to assume that no turnover will be
diverted from the town’s convenience goods shops. In the absence of any estimate from the
10
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.
31
Applicants the precise amount is difficult to estimate but we note the guidance set out in paragraph
D.30 to the Practice Guidance. This advises in respect of assessing impact that:
“…it will always be relevant to consider the character of the development proposed, to
judge its likely trading impact. There is a general assumption that ‘like affects like’, so,
for example, in an area already served by large modern, foodstores, the effects of a new
large food superstore are likely to fall disproportionately on the existing competing
stores. Their proportionate impact on local independent retailers, or discount
foodstores for example may be less.”
6.53
The health check contained as Appendix 7 of the RR notes 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.
6.54
As a broad average the convenience goods shops achieve a turnover of approximately £0.15-0.20m
in food and convenience goods sales. Given these average turnover levels, many 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.”
6.55
The Waitrose store would contain some specialist food counters including patisserie, meat, fish
and deli counters. There would be a wide range of fruit and vegetables. The store therefore has the
potential to operate as a “one stop shop” with shoppers being able to secure all their main and top
up purchases within a single store. This would be supported by a less extensive range of comparison
goods. While these things may extend choice in that locality, there is a strong likelihood, that
shoppers would find little need to also use town centre shops for other food and convenience goods
and some comparison goods as well.
6.56
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.
6.57
In our view therefore it is likely that the proposed development will divert some of the town’s
convenience goods trade from the smaller shops. This could be in the order of £0.2m which would
equate to an impact of approximately 13% on this sector of the town’s trade.
6.58
Finally we note the statement made in paragraph 7.53 of the RR that the Waitrose store ‘could’ have
a positive spin off effect for the town centre by retaining trade that would otherwise shop outside
North Walsham. While we accept that the overall quantum of convenience and comparison goods
expenditure within the North Walsham area would increase we find that no evidence has been
32
submitted to substantiate the claim that there would be a positive benefit to the town centre. Indeed
even if some linked trips to and from the Waitrose store and the town centre occurred, we believe
that this would be more than off-set by the likely reduction in linked trips to and from the
Sainsbury’s and Lidl stores which are much better linked with the primary shopping area. The
proposed location of the Waitrose store on the outer limits of the town’s urban area with relatively
limited connectivity to the town centre, suggests that the majority of shoppers will treat the store as
a one stop shop with the vast majority of shoppers travelling by car. This is confirmed by paragraph
7.69 of the RR which fairly acknowledges the ‘relative lack of accessibility’ of the site other than by
car.
6.59
In respect of comparison goods, the store would generate a turnover of approximately £1.7m in
2013 of which £1.4m is predicted to be drawn from within the catchment area. Given the predicted
growth in comparison goods expenditure which is estimated to perform more strongly than the
convenience goods sector, we would not expect any material impact on the town’s comparison
goods trade. Rather it would compete more directly with the range of comparison goods sold within
the Sainsbury’s food store. Given the business model associated with large grocery retailers, the
comparison goods floorspace within the proposed store will not generate a significant amount of
turnover relative to the total generated within the study area and attracted to North Walsham. The
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.
6.60
The trading characteristics of comparison goods floorspace was considered in a recent Appeal
Decision 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 nonfood 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)
(ii) Edge of town centre trade
6.61
11
The Sainsbury’s food store would in our view experience a minimum reduction of £8.5m. This is a
not insignificant amount but needs to be placed in perspective. The store is estimated to be trade at
approximately £36.7m in 201311. This is approximately £12.2m above its benchmark or company
average turnover at the same date. In fact the benchmark turnover may be somewhat higher since it
is based on 2010 figures. Nonetheless a loss of £8.5m on a cumulative basis would enable this store
to remain trading in slightly in excess of company averages. We would not expect this store to close
although as an edge-of-centre store it would perform less successfully than at present. Moreover
from our observations of its performance the above average sales within the store does not appear
to translate into excessive congestion or overcrowding.
In the absence of any contrary evidence currently available.
33
6.62
We would however expect the proportion of linked shopping and other trips to and from the town
centre to be diminished. Since no cross-tabulations have been provided in the RR we are unable to
quantify the concomitant reduction in other turnover (expenditure) which would be lost from the
town centre.
6.63
A similar comment applies in respect of Lidl. A diversion of £1.7m (cumulative) would enable the
store to trade at around £3.4m in 2013 which would be in excess of its benchmark turnover of
£2.2m. There would be a smaller reduction in the number of linked shopping and other trips to the
town centre.
6.64
Nonetheless we conclude that while both edge-of-centre stores would have their turnovers
reduced, neither would be at risk of closure.
(iii) Investment and trade retained within the town
6.65
It is a truism that any development by a national retailer can be said to create considerable
investment in the local area. The development of a Waitrose store 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’s centre or edge of centre
shopping facilities.
6.66
It would based on our broad brush assessment of capacity, increase the total proportion of
convenience and comparison 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. The one caveat is the risk that
the store becomes so popular that shoppers travel unusually long distances to access it therefore
negating to some extent the benefits of developing a more sustainable pattern of shopping trips.
6.67
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.
34
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
It would assist in providing jobs, training and career opportunities in accordance with Core Aim5.
However there is little evidence that it would improve the commercial viability of North Walsham
town centre nor improve its vitality and viability.
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, have 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 1,830 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. In terms of qualitative need, it would improve the
range and quality of food stores in the North Walsham area.
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 both the Vicarage Road car park and Library/Fire station
sites which occupy edge of centre locations. Moreover having regard to the Framework it is also
necessary to demonstrate that the former HL Foods site is not preferable in terms of its accessibility
and connectivity to the town centre.
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. From our analysis while the impact is likely to be
greater than that predicted by the Applicants we conclude overall that it would not be significantly
35
adverse given the relatively robust trading levels within the Sainsbury’s and Lidl stores. There would
clearly be some diminution in their trading levels with concomitant reductions in the number of
linked trips which on the basis of the evidence submitted cannot be quantified. However neither
store would close and they would continue albeit to a lesser degree, to support the health and
vitality of the town centre. One of two smaller convenience shops in the centre could potentially be
at risk in the medium term and this would diminish the quality and choice within the Primary
Shopping Area. However overall we do not believe that this would constitute a significant adverse
impact.
Accessibility: We have not specifically addressed this issue in any detail. It is clear that the RR
accepts that the site is relatively poorly accessed by non-car means of transport and we agree with
this view. Improvements in terms of bus stop provision and the introduction of pedestrian crossings
will assist along with the proposal Travel Plan. However the site being located on the extreme edge
of the urban area largely divorced from housing areas, is likely to be largely accessible to those with
private cars.
(ii)
7.6
PPS4
The PPS has been superseded by the NPPF and we do not therefore comment on its policies or the
analysis set out in the RR.
(iii)
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012
7.7
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.
7.8
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.
7.9
With regard to impact we do not believe that it would undermine existing, committed or planned
public or private sector investment subject to ensuring that the two edge of centre sites (Vicarage
Street car park and Community Centre/Library/Fire Station) are adequately rejected in sequential
terms.
7.10
The scheme would have a 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. It would not however unduly diminish consumer choice. It would increase the overall level
of trade retained within the town as a whole and consequently we believe that it would not lead to a
significantly adverse impact on any of these factors.
(iv) Policy position on section 106 contributions
7.11
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.
7.12
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
36
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.
7.13
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. However 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.
7.14
We have concluded on the basis of the submitted information that the proposal is not likely to have
a significantly adverse impact on the vitality and viability of North Walsham town centre or any
other centre. Consequently in the circumstances of this particular case, we do not believe that a
planning obligation to mitigate the trading effects is necessary in order to make it acceptable in
planning terms.
37
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)(but
including any mezzanine) shall be limited to 1,830 sq.m. net. Not more than 183 sq.m. net
shall be used for the sale of comparison goods.
8.3
In addition a further condition could be considered in the event that the Council wished to control
the size (floorspace) associated with the coffee shop. A restriction on other uses within Class A1
should also be considered to reduce the potential for introducing a pharmacy, dry cleaners, opticians
or similar retail uses to reduce the degree to which the store would replicate such provision within
the town centre.
38
9.0
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
9.1
In accordance with our instruction from the Council we have reviewed the RR submitted in support
of the planning application. We have also considered the further letters from the agent setting out
observations on the NPPF and responding to two letters of objection submitted by Third Parties.
9.2
We have sought to cross-check the base assumptions used in the RR although we were not tasked
with commissioning a telephone household survey of residents living within the postcodes
comprising the catchment area used in the quantitative analysis.
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. Waitrose Ltd is
one of the front-runners in seeking to expand its market share, 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.
9.4
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 and the choice of the former Focus store, there is
little evidence within the RR to demonstrate that the company had seriously considered and
rejected the four sites set out in Appendix 9 before choosing the application site. In particular
paragraph 3.16 of the RR notes that the Focus unit after becoming available represented an ideal
opportunity, largely it seems on the basis that it could be refurbished. However for the reasons set
out in the main report, the non-viability of building a new store on a sequentially preferable site is
not explained and this is at odds with the company’s clear aim of increasing its market share
nationally. The latter must involve the development of purpose built supermarkets and superstores.
9.6
We have concluded that the analysis and rejection of two edge of centre sites (Vicarage Street car
park and the Community Centre/Library/Fire Station) is less than convincing given the need for
retailers to apply flexibility in terms of scale and format. In addition we do not believe that the RR
adequately explains why the former HL Foods site should not be preferred given that this could
arguably be judged to be better connected with the town centre. The NPPF states that in respect of
out of centre proposals preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to
existing centres.
9.7
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 and stores lying on its edge, while this would be
negative, there being no evidence to suggest that it would have a positive effect, we do not believe
on the basis of the available information that overall it would be significantly adverse and therefore
complies with Policy EC5 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 26 of the NPPF.
39