Our Ref:
Your Ref:
Email:
Date:
11131/SK/ms
PF/12/0310
skarat@firstplan.co.uk
19th June 2012
G Lyon, Esq.
Planning Department
North Norfolk District Council
Council Offices
Holt Road
Cromer
Norfolk NR27 9EN
Dear Mr. Lyon,
FORMER FOCUS UNIT, CROMER ROAD, NORTH WALSHAM, NR28 0HB
PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 12/0310
RESPONSE TO AUDIT OF RETAIL REPORT PREPARED BY MWA ON BEHALF OF
NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL
We are writing on behalf of our clients, Waitrose Ltd and London & Capital, to respond to
the retail issues raised in the report from the Council’s retail advisor Mark Wood of MVA
planning consultants on the above application. The application is for the deletion of
condition 15 imposed on the outline planning permission (No 20011523) dated 13th August
2002 to allow Waitrose to trade from the former Focus unit.
We have now had the opportunity to review the MWA document, entitled “Audit of Retail
Report” and dated June 2012. The Report confirms that Waitrose will generate jobs and
offer an increased choice to residents, two goals which are consistent with the need to
stimulate economic growth and create more sustainable forms of development in the
NPPF. However in addition such objectives are required to be assessed against the two
retail tests in the NPPF.
MWA has undertaken sensitivity testing and concluded that the provisions of the impact
assessment set out in the NPPF and Local plan are met. This is consistent with the overall
conclusions of the Retail Report (RR). However MWA required further information to
demonstrate compliance with the sequential test.
1
In addition you have asked whether we could also consider the Marrick Wire Ropes site as
well and provide further evidence to demonstrate linked trips and/or harmful beneficial
impact of the Waitrose stores elsewhere, including retained expenditure currently lost from
people shopping beyond the town, as at Swaffham and Wymondham.
We address these issues below, particularly the sequential test and have provided further
information on the effects of other Waitrose stores as we can within the time available.
The Sequential Test
The MWA Audit questions whether Waitrose has sufficiently demonstrated consideration of
the 4 sites identified in Appendix 9 of the RR, before choosing the application site. Para 9.5
of the MWA Audit implies that the sites have been dismissed on the basis of the non
viability of building a new store for the Company on a sequentially preferable site. It argues
that this is “at odds” with the Company’s policy to increase market share as this must
involve building new stores.
However this perhaps represents a misunderstanding of the approach taken by Waitrose to
growing its business. Waitrose is part of the John Lewis Partnership, and all employees are
owners (Partners) in the business and share in its success. Waitrose is governed by its
Constitution; the first of which was produced in 1929. The Partnership aims “to make
sufficient profit from its trading operations to sustain commercial viability, to finance it
continued development to distribute share of those profits each year to its members and to
enable it to undertake other activities with its ultimate purpose”. Every investment decision
is taken in light of that constitutional requirement.
Waitrose undertakes “a market assessment” of each site to assess whether it is viable for
the Company to open a new store, before proceeding. Whilst the Company’s aim is to
increase representation, it is important to ensure that each individual shop that is opened
will be profitable and sustainable in its own right. It would be contrary to the business’s
Constitution, and to sound commercial practice, if it were to increase its market share
blindly, at the cost of profitability.
In this case North Walsham is a relatively small town and the viability of opening a store is
marginal. Waitrose has analysed all the opportunities in North Walsham but, based on
Waitrose’s appraisals, the former Focus unit is the only viable opportunity available to
justify opening a store in North Walsham. The costs of refurbishing an existing building are
significantly less than building a new store, and hence the Focus unit provides a viable,
sustainable and profitable business opportunity to Waitrose. A new-build scheme would
not be viable.
Although the statement in para 3.16 of the RR explains the Company’s commercial
rationale for choosing the former Focus site, it is a “non sequitur” to say that this was the
basis on which the sequential sites were dismissed and indeed inaccurate. We accept that
“the fact a specific retailer or occupier is said to be unwilling to locate on a particular site is
not necessarily evidence that it is unviable“ in judging whether a site is unviable. (PPS4
Practice para 6).
2
The sites were identified by the Council in the agreed Scoping Report and assessed in the
RR on the basis of the requirements in the PPS4 Practice Guidance which has been
retained as a non statutory guide ie on the basis of the definition of availability, suitability
and viability, not on whether it was commercially viable for Waitrose to operate from these
sites.
We consider that the RR provides a robust justification that there are no sequentially
preferable sites, however notwithstanding that position we provide further details to address
the questions raised in the MWA Audit. The MWA Audit accepts that the St Nicholas Court
site is not suitable for a development of a store of the size proposed; we have concentrated
on responding to the questions raised in respect of the other three sites.
1. Edge of Centre sites (Vicarage Street Car Park and Community Centre/ Library and Fire
Station)
These sites both lie on the edge of the town centre and therefore we accept that they
need to be addressed as potentially sequentially preferable sites. However we
summarise the reasons why they can be dismissed:
Vicarage Street car park The Council identified the car park as a sequentially
preferable site, as the site is allocated under Policy ROS8 of the Site Allocations DPD
for North Walsham as a retail opportunity site. However the allocation indicates that the
site should include a mixed-use retail and commercial development, with 20 dwellings,
not a large scale foodstore.
The RR dismissed the site on the basis that the Council’s policy accepted that the car
park could not be developed. MWA considered that it was not sufficient justification, as
the Council had accepted that there was sufficient provision elsewhere and that it could
be released. As a result, given the need for applicants and Councils to demonstrate
flexibility in terms of scale and format in the NPPF, it was necessary to consider
whether the site could accommodate a compromised store. The RR also dismissed the
site on grounds of suitability on the basis that it was not big enough to accommodate a
foodstore of the size required. MWA appear to accept this conclusion as they have
suggested that the site would need to be enlarged but even then they accept it would
only accommodate a compromised store.
It is clear that the inclusion of additional sites would provide a larger site. Any number of
sites can be suggested but the issue is whether they are available. The additional sites
suggested are all occupied and in active use; none are actively being marketed. We
estimate that to assemble the site, would involve negotiating with at least 10 separate
owners, and would probably need to involve the use of compulsory purchase powers to
assemble the site. There are therefore significant problems in terms of site assembly
which mean that the site would not be available within a reasonable time period. In the
event that the use of Compulsory Purchase Powers were required, we consider that it
would be unlikely that such an order would be made for the development of a foodstore
on the basis that such a use would conflict with development plan policy, thus failing
one of the key tests in determining whether third party rights can be acquired (ie
whether the development plan supports the purpose for which the land is to be
acquired).
3
The viability of the development would also be an issue because of the significant land
costs associated with the development of this site. There is no retailer interest in the site
which in PPS4 Guidance terms is an indicator that the site is not viable.
We therefore conclude that the site is not suitable, available or viable.
New Road Car Park / Community Centre/ Library and Fire Station
The RR dismissed the site on the basis that it is not available as the whole site is in
active use. However MWA state that, on the basis of the Sheringham experience, it
might be possible to assemble a larger site, including the adjoining library and fire
station. However again any site can be made large enough to accommodate a
proposed development, the question is whether realistically the land is available.
Even if the Council agreed to dispose of the car park, all the additional sites are
occupied; relocation sites would have to be identified for the library and fire station. As
MWA recognise 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. There are no plans to close/relocate these
uses and alternative sites have not been identified. MWA’s suggestion that a wider site
area could be assembled to accommodate the proposed use is entirely speculative. The
site is clearly not available within a reasonable time period, whereas at Sheringham,
the Council had taken that decision and suitable relocation sites had been identified.
Although the site area could accommodate a store of the size, it will result in a
compromised store raising concerns in both traffic and amenity terms. MWA report
accepts the site is too small in its current form “as the issue of servicing and access
would need to be addressed” (and therefore is unsuitable to accommodate the
proposed development).
The costs of development would also be significant in terms of land costs. It is not
commercially viable for Waitrose to develop the site and to our knowledge there is no
other retailer interest in the site, which indicates the site is not viable in terms of the
PPS Guidance para 6.49.
We therefore believe that we have comprehensively demonstrated that neither of these
edge of centre sites are available, suitable of deliverable and therefore can be
dismissed.
2. Former HL Foods Site
MWA accept this is an out of centre site which would have to comply with the sequential
and impact tests within the NPPF and the Core Strategy. However they suggest that the
NPPF para 24 states that, in applying the sequential test, in the event no in or edge of
town sites are available that “preference should be given to accessible sites that are
well connected to the town centre.” It should be noted that this is only a preference not a
rigid requirement.
4
We accept on the basis of the Worksop decision (APPA3010/A/10/2124458) that it is
necessary to compare this site sequentially against the former Focus unit and that the
site is closer in pure distance terms than the former Focus store to the town centre.
However it is still an out of centre site and will not meet the NPPF objectives of in terms
supporting the town centre.
We do not believe that the site is well connected to the town centre. The site lies on the
wrong side of the A149, a busy dual carriageway road which, in our view, would be a
major barrier to undertaking linked trips. Pedestrians would also have to walk along the
footpath under the railway bridge which is only on one side of the road and is very
narrow, to reach the town centre. The site lies next to a railway station; however this
mode of transport is unlikely to significantly increase the number of shopping trips by
non car modes, which is the objective of the NPPF, as few people undertake their main
food shopping by rail. We acknowledge that the site has a larger walk in catchment
population also than the former Focus store. However, at best this site can only be
described as marginally better than the former Focus unit in accessibility terms by non
car modes of transport but in our view it is not better connected to the town centre.
Therefore in accordance with NPPF sequential test the site has to be assessed on its
suitability, availability and viability.
Availability
The RR dismissed the site on the basis that it was contrary to the up to date adopted
policy in the NNSA, as the site is only allocated for only small scale convenience
retailing as part of a wider mixed-use redevelopment (Policy NW01). MWA states that
this fails to recognise the conclusion of the RR that a Waitrose on the former Focus
store would not have any adverse impact on the town centre. They argue that it is a
cleared site and therefore available and it is located closer to the town centre. As a
result, it was necessary to demonstrate why a foodstore could not be part of a first
phase of the development.
We consider MWA’s logic to be flawed as the primary consideration, in determining the
suitability of development proposals, is the development plan. The adopted policy is
clear that retail use should be designed to serve only the needs of the residents and it
would not be open to the planning authority to re-interpret this policy on the basis that a
retail use proposed elsewhere would not have an adverse impact on the town centre. A
foodstore of the size proposed would clearly conflict with development plan policy and
the site is unsuitable on this basis.
Although HL Foods site is technically available, it cannot be considered, in our view, in
isolation from the wider policy allocation. The regeneration of this site is required to
meet future housing and employment needs of the District (The Core Strategy policy
SS10 identifies provision of 900-1,000 houses over the plan period, this site will 400 of
these units. Core Strategy policy SS5 requires 65ha of employment land over the plan
period, this allocation will provide 5ha). The NNSA requires the site to be developed
comprehensively to ensure that these wider regeneration benefits are secured. The use
of the site for a foodstore is contrary to the Council’s up to date policy for the site which
is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. This site is a
5
key strategic site allocated to meet future housing and employment requirements in the
Core Strategy and small scale retailing to serve the development.
Suitability
In assessing the HL Food site’s suitability, it is important to consider its compliance with
retail planning policy. As MWA acknowledge, it is an out of centre site and any
foodstore development would have to meet the impact tests. It would not be
commercially viable for the reasons set out above for Waitrose to build a store on this
site.
We understand that Bidwells, who act on behalf of the landowners, have written to the
Council confirming that their Client has recently been approached by a national retail
operator regarding “the feasibility of a 5,400 sqm (60,000 sqft) non comparison
foodstore and petrol filling station” in a letter dated 29th May 2012. There is no operator
identified. The proposed supermarket is twice the size of the proposed Waitrose store.
This is not surprising as none of the other retailers have a market town small store
format. The store would need to be of this size to compete with Sainsbury’s. A store of
this size is also likely to sell a wide range of comparison goods in our experience. The
Council’s own retail consultants have indicated in their view that they do not consider
that there is sufficient capacity to support such a large supermarket and therefore it
would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the town centre.
It is also likely to create traffic and amenity issues which would have to be addressed,
given a store of this size. This would be exacerbated by the addition of a petrol filling
station. Any suggestion that a large new foodstore is necessary to allow the
development of the rest of the site, with other associated benefits can only be
considered speculation as no evidence has been provided to substantiate this. No
material weight can be given to this. Furthermore, there must be a question as to
whether the use of the site for a foodstore would compromise the physical ability of the
site to deliver the planning policy requirements in terms of residential and employment
land.
It should be recognised that the Focus site is inherently suitable for the proposed
development - it is an existing retail building that has been vacant for some months.
The current proposal will bring into reuse that existing building, and therefore presents a
more sustainable solution to meeting the identified deficiency in convenience retail offer
than a new-build solution would deliver. Given the three-fold definition of “sustainable
development” in the NPPF, it seems entirely appropriate that the suitability of competing
out of centre sites takes fully into account the social, economic and environmental
benefits of reusing an existing building.
Viability.
The HL Foods site must be considered in the context of the wider site. The NNSA policy
acknowledges that the development will be brought forward in phases. The Council
requires a Development Brief to be prepared to ensure that the wider benefits are
secured. ATLAS has been involved in trying to deliver the site which demonstrates the
difficulties in delivering the allocation. They have identified ownership and funding
6
issues. There are 7 other landowners who would have to sign up to the Brief. ATLAS
has produced a Vision Report which recommends how the scheme can be progressed,
either by the Council as a SPG which has time and cost implications, or could be simply
left to the landowner with a parallel first phase planning application, which would be
quicker and less costly “if all matters are agreed satisfactorily”. However it
acknowledges that “it could carry risks that the brief is not acceptable and either result
in difficulties achieving Council endorsement and/or sub optimal development”. NDDC
prefer a partnership approach.
We understand that Bidwells, on behalf of their clients, Hopkins Homes, submitted a
draft Development Brief in March 2012 (which repeated the provision for small scale
local convenience uses and not a larger foodstore) and is awaiting informal comments
from NNDC in advance of a proposed pre- application public consultation. The timetable
was to go out for consultation in May, approval of the Brief in July, with a planning
application to follow in July/ August. The timetable has already slipped. We understand
that the Council is concerned about a number of issues in the Brief. Given the land
ownership issues and the likelihood of a very lengthy planning process and construction
process, the site cannot be considered deliverable within a reasonable period.
We understand that the Council and Hopkins Homes have made a joint bid to the LEP
Growing Places Fund in relation to Phase 1 for the development of the HL Foods site. If
funding is not available it is assumed that the development could not proceed.
We conclude that the site is not suitable, available or viable for the development. The
development of a large foodstore on this site would be contrary to its allocation in the
adopted Site Allocation Development Plan. The site is at best only marginally more
accessible than the former Focus unit but does not have any better linkages with the
town centre. There is no certainty that the site will be delivered or that it is viable.
Even if it could be delivered, para 24 of the NPPF states that considerations of
accessibility give rise only to a preference not a rigid requirement. The wider benefits of
the proposal also need to be taken into account to reach a balanced judgement. The
former Focus store represents the only opportunity to enable Waitrose to open a store
in North Walsham, and (given the absence of suitable and available town centre and
edge of centre sites) it represents the most sustainable means of meeting the need for
convenience goods through the reuse of an existing, vacant retail building. MWA
accepts that Waitrose will stimulate growth, generate jobs and provide consumer choice
in line with the NPPF objectives. If the Council consider the HL Foods site to be
available, suitable and viable for the proposed development, the Secretary of State has
accepted through several appeal decisions, that the Council is entitled to weight the
economic generation and employment benefits( which must be accorded significant
weight) against any conflict with the sequential assessment.
3) Marrick Wire Ropes site
This is a vacant out of centre employment site, the rear part of which lies outside the
limits of urban development on the Proposals Map, immediately to the south of the
application site. To date no application has been submitted for a foodstore on the site
and no retailer identified. However the Council has been engaged in pre application
7
discussions with the developer, as a result the Council has asked for an assessment of
the site in sequential terms to be included. A draft layout plan has been submitted as
part of the discussions which indicates that the proposed store would be circa 60Ksqft
and would be located at the rear of the site. The store entrance would be marginally
closer (120m) to the town centre than the former Focus unit entrance. However the
proposed store is twice the size of the Waitrose and is likely to sell a range of
comparison goods as well. The Council’s retail consultant has not identified capacity to
accommodate a supermarket of this size as a result it is likely to have a significant
adverse impact on the town centre. The site is in a comparable location to the former
Focus store, however, the re-use of an existing vacant retail unit is, in our view, more in
line with the objectives of delivering sustainable development than building a new
foodstore on a protected employment site, the loss of which would be contrary to the
Council’s development plan policies (Policy SS5) and outside the limits of the identified
settlement boundary. As a result this site is not suitable for a large foodstore and is not
as sustainable in terms of the NPPF objectives as the above proposal.
Evidence on Linked Trips
The Council asked if Waitrose had any further evidence of linked trips and or harmful or
beneficial impacts on town centres including retaining expenditure currently lost to other
stores beyond, as at Swaffham and Wymondham.
The survey results indicate that there is not a significant amount of linkage between the
Sainsbury and the town centre. When asked, over 45% of people never undertook
linked trips, 5.7% rarely and 21% sometimes. (Q5 of the Household Survey). However
here is a significant outflow of trade from North Walsham to other stores as the RR
demonstrates. The survey highlights that a significant number of people travel long
distances to shop at the stores in Cromer and North Norwich. This trade will be retained
in the area and as a result expenditure which might have been spent elsewhere as part
of the trip is likely to be spent in the town centre. Waitrose attracts people from a wide
catchment area as the catchment area plans at Appendix 4 of the RR demonstrate. This
in our view will offset any trade lost as a result of loss of linked trips.
The evidence from the stores at Swaffham and Wymondham below demonstrates that
independent shops trade successfully alongside supermarkets in these locations:
a)
Waitrose, Castle Acre Road, Swaffham, PE37 1HT, opened 5th August
2004 - 24,145sqft
The town has a population of circa. 6,000 and the Waitrose shop is located
approximately 1.5km from the town centre. In addition to Waitrose there is a small
ASDA and Co-op as well as an Iceland, yet these trade alongside two butchers, two
florists, a newsagents and two coffee shops. Since Waitrose’s arrival nearly eight
years ago, only Woolworths, as their stores did nationally, has closed. We have
recently supported the Breckland food festival which promotes local producers,
retailers and restaurants. We supported with funding and provided employees to
help out through our Partner Volunteering scheme, which sees each Waitrose store
donate 250 staff hours to local projects.
8
b)
Waitrose, Norwich Road, Wymondham, Norfolk, NR18 0SH, opened 4th
July 2000 - 26,863 sq ft
Waitrose lies on the edge of the town about 2km from the town centre. The store
trades close to a butchers, two newsagents, two coffee shops and a florist. Since
we have been trading there, a Co-op convenience store opened in the former
Woolworths unit. This replaced an outdated Somerfield store when Co-op acquired
Somerfield. Waitrose is an active member of the Chamber of Trade and facilitate a
monthly local business forum in their cafe. They also hold a breakfast meeting on
the first Tuesday of the month and we supply complimentary coffee, bacon rolls and
the use of the cafe before trade commences. Each year the branch supports a
Town Centre Christmas Dickensian Evening and for many years we have given
financial support to the Wymondham Music Festival. We have also launched our
Partner Volunteering scheme in 2011 and of course donate £1,000 each month
through Community Matters.
It is in Waitrose’s interest to ensure that the town centre is vital and viable. Waitrose
would be a member of the Chamber of Trade and work with them to ensure that it
contributes to secure the future vitality and viability of the town centre.
Conclusions
The RR included a robust sequential and impact assessment of the application, in line with
advice contained within the NPPF and the Communities and Local Government Practice
Guidance. This impact assessment has been subject to a thorough review and “sensitivitytesting” exercise by the Council’s consultants, MWA. This review has concluded that the
proposal will not result in any significant adverse impact on the town centre, and that the
application complies with Policy EC5 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 26 of the NPPF.
The above analysis clearly demonstrates that there is no sequentially preferable edge or
town centre site available. Whilst it is acknowledged that the HL site is closer to the town
centre, this out of centre site must be seen as part of the wider strategic allocation. The use
of the site as a large supermarket would be contrary to current adopted policy which
allocates the site for a mixed use development to meet strategic housing and employment
needs including only small scale food retailing. It is a complex site to deliver as ATLAS has
indicated and has funding issues. We understand a retail operator has recently indicated
interest in developing a large supermarket on this site for a store of at least twice the size of
the proposed Waitrose. We believe that a store of this size would not be acceptable on
impact grounds and would raise traffic and amenity issues as well. We do not believe
therefore that this site is suitable or deliverable for a large foodstore, and such a use would
be contrary to the up to date policy for the site.
Even if the HL Food site was capable of being delivered within a reasonable time period,
the use of the HL Foods site for large scale retail development would be contrary to the
Development Plan and the site remains unsuitable on this basis.
The approval of the above application would not be contrary in our view to para 24 of the
NPPF which states that if no in or edge of town centres are identified in considering out of
centre sites, as whilst it states that there is a “preference” for more accessible out of centre
9
sites to be developed it is not a requirement. The former Focus store is already in retail use
but has fallen vacant. This application would see that existing retail unit brought back into
beneficial use, and must therefore be considered “sustainable development” - using the
existing structure without the need for the use of substantial additional natural resources
and energy to be used in the construction of a new building. This consideration should be
given weight in the sequential analysis of the two sites. The re-use of the former Focus unit
would also generate substantial employment and economic regeneration benefits which
should be accorded considerable weight consistent with the NPPF and Government’s
Planning For Growth Agenda.
A Waitrose store would make a significant contribution to the town, it would create 120
jobs, offer an increased consumer choice and could be open and trading by October this
year, if planning permission is granted. This former Focus unit is the only viable opportunity
for the Company to secure representation in the town.
It is our view that the application has satisfied the requirements of the retail tests as set out
within the NPPF. We believe that it is sustainable development, is in line with the NPPF,
benefits therefore from the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and should
be approved.
Yours sincerely,
SHIRLEY KARAT
Director
10