Appendix 4
AUDIT OF
RETAIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
IN SUPPORT OF
PROPOSED
LOCAL CONVENIENCE FOODSTORE
POLKA ROAD
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA
PREPARED ON BEHALF OF
NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL
September 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
4.1
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
10
6.0
NEED AND IMPACT
14
7.0
ASSESSMENT AGAINST PLANNING POLICY
22
8.0
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS
25
9.0
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
26
List of appendices (bound at the rear)
Appendix [1]
Appendix [2]
Appendix [3]
Appendix [4]
Appendix [5]
Letter from MWA to North Norfolk District Council.
Inset Map 8b from the adopted Core Strategy (2008).
UK grocery market.
Appeal decision in Worksop (2011).
Population and expenditure within 0-10 minute drive time provided by Experian.
2
4.2
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
MWA has accepted an instruction from North Norfolk District Council (the ‘Council’) to provide
advice on retail matters associated with a planning application (No. PF/12/0418) which seeks
permission to erect a 929 sq.m. gross (650 sq.m. net1) food store at Polka Road, Wells-Next-The Sea.
1.2
The planning application is supported by a Retail Assessment Report (RAR) prepared by RPS Planning
and Development. We have been asked to review the contents of the RAR particularly in respect of
the degree to which the scheme complies with the sequential approach to site selection and the
impact on the town centre.
1.3
Following an initial review of the RAR we submitted a letter to the Council highlighting areas which
required further clarification by the Applicant. A copy of this letter is attached as Appendix [1].
1.4
In response RPS submitted a further letter dated 22nd June 2012 and an email dated 25th June. We have
taken the contents of this letter into account in preparing our report.
1.5
We have also had regard to representations submitted by Enterprise Inns in respect of the suitability
and availability of the Ark Royal Public House at Freeman Street in the town. The letter from the
company states that the site is available for the development of a convenience food store.
1
According to the RAR the Competition Commission defined net sales area is 560 sq.m. This excludes checkouts and other
areas including circulation space behind the checkouts, lobbies and toilets.
3
4.3
2.0
SITE LOCATION AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
(i) Site location
2.1
Section 4 of the RAR describes the context of the site and its proximity to the town centre and
primary shopping area. It notes that the site was previously used for the sale of caravans and as a
garden centre, the latter selling a range of food and convenience goods. It is located close to the Old
Station Pottery and Book Store, the Wells Antique Centre a veterinary surgery and Combat Action
Games.
2.2
The RAR states that the site lies 230 metres from the boundary of the town centre and approximately
3002 metres from the Primary Retail Frontage (PRF). Inset Map 8b associated with the Core Strategy
defines the PRF and the boundary of the town centre. This is attached as Appendix [2].
2.3
The town centre boundary includes Staithe Street, parts of The Quay and the eastern part Station
Road to its junction with Standard Road. The PRF is more narrowly defined included the southern part
of The Quay, The Staithe and parts of Station Road.
2.4
From our visits to the site and an examination of the location of the application site we generally
concur with the distances cited by the Applicant.
2.5
Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defines ‘edge-of-centre’ for retail purposes
as a:
“…location that is well connected and up to 300 metres of the primary shopping area.”
2.6
The Practice Guidance3 which accompanied the former PPS4, remains extant. Paragraph 6.16 states that
at application stage where the primary shopping area is appropriately defined, the policy status of a site
will be clear. Given the distance of the application site from the PRF (equating to the PSA) it is
arguable that the site falls within the definition of an edge-of-centre location.
2.7
However paragraph 6.19 of the Practice Guidance continues and advises that when considering a
specific proposal or application, the focus should be on the effects of the scheme as well as the site’s
location. Consideration should be given to the degree of integration and the current/future level of
accessibility. Paragraph 6.20 identifies key considerations such as:
existing retailing/other main town centre uses in the centre i.e. the level of ‘functional linkage’ and
the propensity of shoppers or other users to walk between developments.
The attractiveness of linkages, i.e. whether they are of sufficient quality in terms of quality of
paving, way marking/sign posting, street furniture, lighting and perception of safety.
The way in which the scheme will operate as an integral part of the centre, for example the
provision of shared car parking, car park management, links with new or existing public transport
routes and effectiveness of overall management and promotion of the centre.
2.8
2
3
The RAR states that the site and proposed store would be sufficiently close to the town centre and
PRF to encourage linked shopping and other trips. Since one of the main objectives in the NPPF is to
sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of existing shopping centres, the sequential approach
forms an important mechanism for ensuring that wherever possible new retail development should
contribute to achieving such an objective in addition to improving choice and competition.
Notwithstanding the distance of the site from the PRF the RAR does not however seek to quantify the
degree to which the development would encourage linked trips either on foot or by car. Consequently
th
This is refined to 287 metres in the email from RPS dated 25 June 2012.
Practice Guidance on need, impact and the sequential approach (December 2009)
4
4.4
we are unable to conclude based on the submitted information that the scheme would contribute in a
positive manner to the vitality of the town centre.
(ii) The proposed development
2.9
The scheme involves the construction of a supermarket extended to 929 sq.m. gross. The net (sales)
area is defined by reference to the Competition Commission definition at 560 sq.m. 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.”
2.10
In other words the net sales area is defined as only that area in which goods are displayed for sale and
excludes for example the checkouts. Including the latter along with lobbies and walkways behind the
checkouts increases the net area to 650 sq.m.
2.11
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
5
4.5
proactively manage the impacts of development including limiting any internal alterations to increase
the amount of gross floorspace by specifying the maximum amount which is permitted. Similarly the
mix of convenience and comparison goods can be controlled. Paragraph 8.5 states:
“In the case of retail proposals where an impact assessment has been undertaken,
based upon a particular scale of net sales floor space, and the impact and appropriateness
of the scale of development has been judged acceptable, it will normally be appropriate
to impose conditions restricting total net sales area permitted, unless through sensitivity
testing the consequences of different levels of net sales floor space have been fully
examined.”
2.12
The RAR states that the store is intended to be sufficiently large to meet main food shopping needs. In
addition it would include a small proportion of non-convenience (comparison goods) although the
amount of floorspace devoted to such items is not specified. It is also stated that the store needs to be
sufficiently large to compete with larger food stores further afield particularly those in Fakenham.
6
4.6
3.0
3.1
REVIEW OF THE GROCERY RETAIL MARKET
We set out at Appendix [3] 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 have 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 retailers over the next few years.
3.2
Section 4 of the RAR report identifies how Co-operative Societies have come under pressure from
multiple grocers including the development of convenience stores. It states that the Co-operatives
have sought to avoid direct competition with the market leaders in superstores by focusing on the CStore market.
3.3
While this comment is noted it is relevant to highlight the fact that the Impact Assessment set out in
Section 7 of the SRA assumes that the proposal will compete ‘like with like’ i.e. with the larger
foodstores and superstores further afield and not with the existing convenience goods retailers in the
town centre. We are unclear why this should be the case if the stated aim is not to compete directly
with the national multiple retailers and applying a ‘like competes with like’ approach the scheme has
the potential to also impact on town centre traders.
3.4
The ‘Groceries Market’ final report published in 2007 by the Competition Commission concluded that
mid-sized grocery stores i.e. those larger than 280 sq.m. but less than 1,000 sq.m. were likely to have
their catchment areas constrained by other stores within a 5-10 minute drive time and by larger
grocery stores within a 10-15 minute drive time. As we comment in Section 6 we do not believe
therefore that the use of a 10 minute drive time by the Applicant is inappropriate.
3.5
The scheme is predicted to deliver 40 employment opportunities (full and part time) consistent with
the growth in this sector of the UK’s economy.
7
4.7
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 Wells-Next-the-Sea. It is also useful in placing in
context the analysis within the RAR regarding the capacity for future convenience goods floorspace
and the health of the town centre.
(ii) Wells-Next-the-Sea
4.3
In relation to the town the study noted that it is one of the smaller centres within the District. It
serves both the day-to-day needs of its local resident population, as well as the demands of its tourists
and visitors. The shopping area extends in a linear route northwards from Station Road to the harbour
front along Staithe Street. The units to the north and along The Quay are predominantly orientated at
the tourist and visitor market, comprising a range of gift and antique shops, along with amusement
arcades, fast-food outlets and restaurants. The town centre is also located in a Conservation Area and
there are a significant number of listed buildings in the prime shopping area.
4.4
In terms of its underlying ‘health’ it was assessed as follows:
Floorspace – The town is one of the smallest within the District. DTZ’s audit indicated that there
are 66 outlets.
—
Multiple Outlets – The town is dominated by independently-owned stores and the major multiple
outlets include Costcutter and Moss Chemist.
Convenience Provision – The town was noted as having the highest proportion of convenience
stores in the District and predominantly serves the day-to-day needs of its local population and
visitors. Over 20% of outlets within the town are convenience stores, compared to the national
average of 7%. The convenience offer includes independent butchers and bakers, and the small
Costcutter.
Comparison Provision – The town was held to have a small amount of comparison retailing and
this comprises a mixture of tourist and value-led stores selling a wide range of goods, including gifts,
art, antiques, charity items, clothing, and electrical goods.
—
Service Provision – Wells has a relatively low service business offer, comprising mainly an interior
design practice, a bank and a post office. The latter broadly serves the basic needs of residents in the
immediate area.
8
4.8
—
Vacancies – DTZ identified one vacant unit in the centre at the time of our audits, which is
equivalent to a vacancy rate of 2%. This is below the national average of 8% and also the 7% (5 units)
identified in 1995.
—
Cafés, restaurants and bars – There are a small number of cafés, fast-food outlets and pubs within
the town. These primarily serve the needs of the visitors and tourists to Wells.
—
Leisure – The town has limited leisure provision. It is dominated by amusement arcades, but also has
an arts centre.
4.5
In terms of its catchment area the study concluded that Wells is an important holiday and visitor
destination in North Norfolk. The survey responses confirmed that it draws over 75% of respondents
from outside the 10 minute and 20 minute catchments. Some 20% of respondents lived within the 10
minute catchment. It was also concluded that many people travel outside of the town for their
shopping and other needs.
4.6
The RAR notes that the town is primarily served by the Costcutter store which extends to 180 sq.m.
net. This is supported by a range of independent and niche stores selling fruit and vegetables, meat and
delicatessen products, confectionery and pharmaceutical goods. It notes that residents have a much
greater range of food shops in Fakenham, Holt and Cromer and this will be increased on completion
of a new Tesco food store at Cromer Road, Sheringham.
9
4.9
5.0
THE ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES
(i) Introduction
5.1
Section 6 of the RAR examines whether there are any sequentially preferable sites which are suitable
and available within the town centre. In terms of the scope of the assessment we agree that only
Wells-Next-the-Sea should be examined. This is consistent with the High Court Judgement in the case
of Regina v Braintree District Council Ex Parte Clacton Common Development Limited. In that case George
Bartlett QC concluded that it was not necessary to look at potential alternative sites in every centre
that fell within the catchment area of the proposed development. It had been contended that
potential alternative sites in every centre within the proposed development catchment area should be
considered. However, in reaching his judgement Mr Bartlett QC stated that a site examined some
distance from the application site would effectively have its own catchment area which may only
include a part of the original catchment area of the application site. In any event, the catchment of the
proposed development relates only to the town of Wells-Next-the-Sea and there are no other
centres in the defined catchment area that could accommodate retail development of any significant
size.
5.2
In terms of how the assessment has been applied it has been assumed that a minimum site area of
0.4ha is required commensurate with the size of the application site. It is also stated that a single level
store is required with some adjacent level car parking.
5.3
In this regard it is relevant to note the following:
1. Flexibility and Realism
5.4
It is necessary to assess sequentially preferable sites which are suitable and available to accommodate
the type and scale of development proposed. In this regard the Supreme Court in Tesco Stores Ltd v
Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13, held that in defining the term ‘suitable’ reference should be made
to the design of the developer’s proposal subject to the demonstration of flexibility and realism. It was
held that the issue of suitability must be directed at the developer’s proposals and not to some
alternative scheme which might be suggested by the Local Planning Authority. In other words any
assessment must reflect the fact that the Applicant operates in the real world and is proposing a
scheme which addresses the qualitative deficiencies within the existing store.
2. Status of individual sites
5.5
Paragraph 24 of the Framework states:
“Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main
town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-todate Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in
town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should
out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals,
preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre.
Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as
format and scale.”
5.9
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 [4]. It was stated in paragraph 10.22 of the Decision Letter that while there is a strong
preference for in and edge of centre sites, where these are not available, the policy objective is best
met by out-of-centre sites which contribute to the objectives set out in paragraph 6.8 of the Practice
Guidance. This states in the absence of any in-centre sites, that preference should be given to edge of
10
4.10
centre sites well served by a choice of means of transport, which are close to a centre and which have
a higher likelihood of forming links with a centre.
5.10
Therefore where a site is identified which is accepted as being of the same ‘status’ in sequential terms
it is necessary to examine whether it is better connected to the town centre.
5.11
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 134, referred to above makes clear
that the issue of suitability should be based on the proposals put forward by a particular
applicant/developer and not to some alternative scheme which might be suggested by the Local
Planning Authority. In other words an assessment of alternative sites must have regard to the format,
scale and design of a proposal subject to ensuring that it had been applied flexibly and with a degree of
realism.
• Viability – whether there is a reasonable prospect that development will occur on the site at a
particular point in time. Again the importance of demonstrating the viability of alternatives depends in
part on the nature of the need and the timescale over which it is to be met.
5.12
5.13
However paragraph 24 of the Framework does not explicitly refer to ‘viability’.
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.”
5.14
This is consistent with the advice within the Framework which requires the need to assess schemes
having regard to the degree of flexibility in respect of format and scale. In this regard we accept that a
new food store has to be ‘fit for purpose’ and be able to provide an ability for shoppers to meet both
their main food and top-up shopping needs. The ability to provide a coffee shop while perhaps
desirable is not essential to meeting this objective.
(ii) Sites examined
5.15
We have visited the town and examined the four sites which are examined in the RAR. Dealing with
each in turn:
4
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.
11
4.11
1. Festival Amusements
5.16
The Applicant accepts that this site is large enough to accommodate a food store of approximately
670 sq.m. gross over two floors with five car parking spaces. No plans have been submitted to confirm
this position but we accept that the site is currently being redeveloped involving three small retail units
on the ground floor with flats above. It is therefore not available.
2. Underwood Amusements
5.17
This site is in beneficial use and we accept that it is too small to accommodate the size of store
proposed.
3. Stearmans Yard car park and Ark Royal PH
5.18
This Stearmans Yard car park is owned by the Council and forms the town’s main car park. It contains
approximately 140 spaces and lies adjacent to the Ark Royal Public House. Representations by
Enterprise Inns state that the Ark Royal PH site is capable of accommodating a convenience store and
highlights the close proximity of the site to the Primary Retail Frontage of the town centre.
5.19
In our opinion the location of the site is sequentially preferable to that at Polka Road given its close
proximity to the Primary Retail Frontage of the town. Stearmans Yard also forms one of the principal
car parks serving the town centre and from observation visitors can conveniently and safely walk into
and from the town centre.
5.20
The Applicant has rejected the Ark Royal PH on the basis that it is not suited to the development of a
food store capable of clawing back lost weekly shopping trips5. The RAS initial asserted that the site
was not available but this argument is no longer advanced on behalf of the Applicant.
5.21
Taken in isolation and applying the approach set out by the Supreme Court in Tesco Stores Ltd v
Dundee City Council [2012] it is arguable that the site in isolation is not suited to the development of a
food store proposed at Polka Road. However there is in our view scope to consider the inclusion of
part of the Stearmans Yard car park which would afford the opportunity to accommodate an
appropriate number of car parking spaces. As the agent’s letter of 22nd June confirms the Ark Royal
PH extends to approximately 0.25ha which is sufficient to accommodate a 929 sq.m. gross store
together with servicing and delivery area. Dedicated customer car parking could be provided on
adjacent land whilst still enabling a large number of spaces available for visitors to the town centre, the
car park containing approximately 140 spaces.
5.22
The Applicants have stated that the publicly owned car park is not available and would not become
available within a reasonable period of time and have requested further information on the
circumstances when it might become available in order that its potential to be included within a
redevelopment scheme could be considered. Our understanding is that the Council would consider
releasing part of the site for redevelopment depending upon the number of spaces required and their
subsequent management. This option would not entail the complete redevelopment of the car park.
5.23
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
5
Agent’s letter dated 22
nd
June 2012.
12
4.12
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.”
5.24
On the basis of the submitted information we are therefore unable to conclude that the Ark Royal PH
when coupled with the use of part of the adjoining car park would not become available within a
reasonable period of time and would be unsuited to the type and scale of development proposed at
Polka Road. In our opinion having regard to the two key tests underpinning the sequential approach as
set out in paragraph 6.2 of the Practice Guidance we are unable to accept the Applicant’s claim that the
site is unavailable and unsuitable.
13
4.13
6.0
NEED AND IMPACT
(i) Introduction
6.1
Section 7 of the RAR deals with Impact Assessment. This should be read in the context of Section 5 of
the same report which deals with capacity and need. In this context there is no requirement within the
NPPF for the Applicant to demonstrate a need for the proposed development notwithstanding the
requirements of Policy EC 5 of the Core Strategy.
(ii) The need for Impact Assessment
6.2
In their letter dated 22nd June 2012 the Applicant’s agent states that there is no requirement for an
Impact Assessment given the fact that the scheme involves 929 sq.m. gross (560-650 sq.m. net) of
retail floorspace which thereby falls below the 2,500 sq.m. threshold set out in paragraph 26 of the
NPPF. The NPPF requires that when assessing applications for retail development outside of town
centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning authorities should
require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace
threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m).This should include
assessment of
the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and
private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal;
and
the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local
consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years
from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact
will not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten
years from the time the application is made.
6.3
It is claimed that there is no locally set threshold. However policy EC 5 of the Core Strategy states
that schemes proposing between 500 and 749 sq.m. net of retail floorspace outside of a Primary
Shopping Area of a Large or Small town should be subject to an assessment of its impact on the vitality
and viability of existing centres. In our view this policy provides a locally set threshold which accords
with paragraph 26 of the NPPF and consequently an Impact Assessment is required in this particular
case.
(iii) Qualitative need
6.4
The Practice Guidance refers to qualitative need at paragraph 3.15. Six factors are normally identified,
although others can often be considered relevant:
Deficiencies or ‘gaps’ in existing provision – No survey information has been
submitted to corroborate the degree to which existing shops in the town centre
meet main food shopping needs. We nonetheless accept that they are unlikely
to meet households’ regular grocery shopping needs and is likely to be
demonstrated by the loss of a not insignificant proportion of main food shopping
expenditure.
Choice and competition – the provision of a modern supermarket in WellsNext-the-Sea will provide much improved local choice for the resident
population that will help to increase competition between the existing retail
14
4.14
destinations and in particular with the larger out of centre food stores in the
centres of Fakenham, Sheringham and Cromer;
Overtrading and congestion- There is no evidence of significant over-trading
within existing stores although during our visits the Costcutter convenience
store appeared to be busy.
Reducing travel distances – The reliance on stores in other more distant centres
generates high travel distances by the private car and public transport, whilst
also eliminating access on foot.
Location specific needs – Such as the provision of retail facilities, especially for
convenience goods local to the location of available expenditure; and
Quality of existing provision – The quality of existing provision is limited..
6.5
We accept therefore that there is an identified qualitative need for the proposed store within the
catchment area to assist in retaining some of the expenditure that is currently leaking to other stores
further away (which bring with it a consequential need to travel further, often by car), whilst at the
same time providing improved choice to residents in the area. The proposed store offers a destination
for shoppers within the catchment to do more than top-up shopping and would be considered as
suitable for their weekly shop.
(iv) Quantitative need
6.6
The approach adopted to assessing the availability of convenience goods expenditure within the RAR is
based on a 10 minute drive time which reflects policy EC 5 of the Core Strategy. It uses a base year of
2012 and design years of 2017 and 2022. Although as in other parts of the report reference is made to
policies within PPS4, the latter has been superseded by the NPPF.
(a) Population and expenditure
6.7
The population and expenditure within the 10 minute drive time area is summarised below:
Table A: Population and convenience goods expenditure within 0-10 minute drive time
2012-2017
0-5 minutes
Population
2012
Population
2017
Convenience
goods
expenditure
2012
(£ms)
Convenience
goods
expenditure
2017
(£ms)
4,031
4,143
£7.8
£8.1
6.8
Although reference is made to the use of convenience goods expenditure per capita figures from
Experian Business Strategies these are not included within the report. Nor is there any clear
explanation of what growth rates have been applied or the degree to which special forms of trading
have been excluded.
6.9
We have used our own Micromarketer software provided by Experian to cross-check the population
within the 0-10 minute drive time which corroborates those used in the RAR. A copy of the report is
15
4.15
attached as Appendix [5]. Despite the lack of clarity in the predicted forecasts we have adopted
these for the purposes of our review.
(b) Existing convenience goods expenditure retention
Table B: Leakage of convenience goods expenditure within 10 minute drive time 20122017
Total resident population
Total Resident Convenience Goods Expenditure £m
Inflow of Convenience Goods expenditure £m (10%)
Total Convenience Goods Expenditure £m
Convenience goods turnover of Wells-Next-the-Sea
Centre £m
Retention Rate
‘Leakage’ of Convenience Goods Expenditure £m
Change
2012 to 2017
+112
+0.30
2012
4,031
2017
4,143
7.8
0.78
8.58
8.1
0.81
8.91
0.03
+0.33
2.46
28%
6.18
2.57
28%
6.41
+0.1
+0%
+0.67
6.10
The turnover of the town centre is based on benchmark or company average levels which is the
approach normally adopted when assessing the capacity for additional floorspace. The table
demonstrates in broad terms that the majority of the expenditure is not retained locally and is lost to
higher order centres. The question is the degree to which the proposed development could increase
this level of retention.
6.11
In making this assessment it is nonetheless relevant to note the conclusions of the 2005 study. Initially
the consultants estimated that the convenience goods floorspace within the town centre was achieving
well above average sales densities in excess of £13,000 (2001 prices). The consultants adjusted this to
reflect a sales density of approximately £6,700 sq.m. (2001 prices) and concluded that within the Core
Catchment comprising Zones 1-3 the town attracted approximately £2.2m of convenience gods
expenditure. This equates to approximately £2.5m in 2009 prices. The total convenience goods
turnover of the town in 2011 was predicted to be £3.7m (c 4.3m at 2009 prices). However over 40%
of this was derived from expenditure outside of the Core and Secondary areas i.e. from tourists. This
shows the very substantial draw of the town.
6.12
We do not believe therefore that the assumption that there would be an inflow of 10% of convenience
goods expenditure to be unrealistic and indeed this is potentially conservative estimate based on the
results of the 2009 study.
6
This turnover is derived from the RAR, paragraph 5.10.2. This relates to all convenience goods floorspace within the 0-10
minute drive time and not just to the town centre. There is very little explanation as to how the figure has been derived and it
seems quite possible that this should be considerably higher. Although the 2005 retail study estimated a convenience good
turnover within the town centre of around £2.2m this was derived after making significant changes to the unadjusted
expenditure flows derived from the telephone household surveys.
7
Based on increase in floorspace efficiency of 0.2% per annum and assumes the net convenience goods trading area within
the town of 527 sq.m. as per the 2005 study. This would equate to approximately £4,750 sq.m. in 2017. While this is
somewhat on the low side it should be remembered that the inflow of 10% is likely to be conservative and consequently
additional expenditure is likely to be attracted to the centre.
16
4.16
(c) Proposed convenience goods expenditure retention
6.13
The RAR states that the proposed supermarket is likely to achieve a convenience goods turnover of
£2.5m. There is little explanation as to how this has been derived although RPS has confirmed in an
email to us that it reflects the company average.
6.14
In our opinion the predicted design year turnover which equates to only £4,464 sq.m. based on a net
sales area of 560 sq.m. and even less if the larger sales are is included, is too low. Paragraph D.11 of
Annex D to the Practice Guidance states:
“Where there are firm proposals for the development of an allocated site in a development
plan document, or in the case of site-specific proposals which are backed by a known operator,
the anticipated turnover and characteristics of the proposed development can be estimated by
reference to comparable schemes, and/or the operator’s benchmark turnover (having regard to
local circumstances).”
6.15
Paragraph D.14 continues:
“The use of published evidence of average turnover levels derived from company accounts can
provide a basis upon which to gauge possible turnover of a development. This should take
account of the anticipated size of the proposed store and that turnover/floorspace ratios will
vary depending on the size of store. Any assumptions that new development will only achieve a
potential retailers’ respective company average should be treated with caution. Experience
suggests that operators will seek to improve their turnover over time by the development of
new, more efficient stores, in which case sensitivity testing may be necessary.
6.16
Given the fact that the proposed store would be by far the largest within the catchment area and is
intended to meet main food shopping needs we estimate that its convenience goods turnover is likely
to be higher than that predicted and it is therefore appropriate to test the sensitivity of this
assumption.
6.17
In Table C below we demonstrate that based on the Applicant’s estimate of turnover, it would be
necessary to retain between 50-60% of the convenience goods expenditure generated within and
attracted to the 0-10 minute catchment for it to be fully supported
17
4.17
Table C: Improved retention within 0-10 minute catchment 2012-2017 based on £2.5m
turnover
6.18
Change
2012 to 2017
+112
+0.30
2012
2017
Total resident population
4,031
4,143
Total Resident Convenience Goods Expenditure £m
Inflow of Convenience Goods expenditure £m (10%)
Total Convenience Goods Expenditure £m
Convenience goods turnover of Wells-Next-the-Sea
Centre £m
Retention Rate
‘Leakage’ of Convenience Goods Expenditure £m
Improved retention rate: Surplus expenditure £m
- 40%
- 50%
- 60%
7.8
0.78
8.58
8.1
0.81
8.91
+0.03
+0.33
2.4
28%
6.18
2.5
28%
6.41
+0.1
+0%
+0.23
-
1.1
2.0
2.8
+1.1
+2.0
+2.8
On the basis that the proposed supermarket achieves a turnover of around £3.1m in 2017 based on a
net sales area of 560 sq.m. and a sales density of £5,500 sq.m. the following levels of retention would
be required as set out in Table D:
Table D: Improved retention within 0-10 minute catchment 2012-2017 based on £3.1m
turnover
Total resident population
Total Resident Convenience Goods Expenditure £m
Inflow of Convenience Goods expenditure £m (10%)
Total Convenience Goods Expenditure £m
Convenience goods turnover of Wells-Next-the-Sea
Centre £m
Retention Rate
‘Leakage’ of Convenience Goods Expenditure £m
Improved retention rate: Surplus expenditure £m
- 40%
- 50%
- 60%
- 70%
6.19
Change
2012 to 2017
+112
+0.30
2012
4,031
2017
4,143
7.8
0.78
8.58
8.1
0.81
8.91
+0.03
+0.33
2.4
28%
6.18
2.5
28%
6.41
+0.1
+0%
+0.23
-
1.1
2.0
2.8
3.7
+1.1
+2.0
+2.8
+3.7
In order to secure this turnover and assuming all shops within the town maintain their benchmark
turnover levels, the town would need to retain in excess of 60% of the convenience goods
18
4.18
expenditure attracted to it. The RAR states that this is a more reasonable level for the service centre
involved and we agree that an improvement in retention levels would lead to a more sustainable
pattern of shopping trips by reducing part the degree to which expenditure is lost to higher order
centres.
6.20
As paragraph B.54 of the Practice Guidance states it may not be appropriate to maintain the market
share of existing centres taking into account the available expenditure and shopping patterns.
Paragraph B.55 of the Practice Guidance observes that it is inevitable that any new development will
have some effect on market shares.
6.18
Paragraph B8.20 of the Practice Guidance recognises that:
“It is important to build a clear picture of current expenditure patterns within the assessment area,
and between the individual sub-areas which have been identified. This will allow decision-makers to
create a more accurate picture of shopping patterns of different types of goods which need to be
planned for. It will also help identify any significant ‘leakage’ or outflow of expenditure to
competing destinations and provide a means of identifying relative deficiencies and opportunities
for new development and, where appropriate, ‘clawing back’ expenditure.”
6.19
Much will depend upon the ability of the proposed store to clawback main food shopping expenditure
since failure to do otherwise will inevitably have consequences for existing shops which currently are
likely to meet some main food and top-up shopping needs. Although the RAR makes reference to the
need to improve expenditure on main food shopping, the absence of a larger convenience store or
supermarket serving the town means that the existing shops within the centre are also likely to
accommodate some main food shopping expenditure and as presently drafted the RAR does not
provide an indication of how the expenditure is distributed between stores and shopping centres.
6.20
If it is assumed that the split between main food and top-up shopping is 70%-30%, this would provide
approximately £6.2m of main food expenditure in 2017. If the proposed store’s turnover of £3.1m was
comprised of 80% of main food shopping, this would only represent around 40% of the total available.
(£2.5m).
6.21
On the other hand if 50% of its turnover was derived from top-up shopping i.e. c£1.5m, this would
account for around 56% of the total top-up shopping expenditure in 2017 (£2.7m). Since the remaining
stores achieve a turnover of £2.5m and assuming £2.0m comprised top-up expenditure there is scope
for a substantial shortfall relative to the availability of this type of expenditure.
6.22
At paragraph 7.2.8 of the RAR it is stated that the proposed store would be likely to clawback 40% of
convenience goods expenditure originating in the 0-10 minute catchment area. This equates to around
£3.2m which is some £0.7m higher than the predicted design year turnover. This tends to support our
conclusion that the proposed store would achieve a higher turnover than that predicted and as a
consequence it is also therefore likely that the predicted impact on the town centre has also been
under-estimated.
(d) Impact
6.23
It is estimated by the Applicant that around 10% of the proposed store’s turnover would be derived
from shops in the town centre. Based on the Applicant’s estimate this would equate to £0.25m
equivalent to an impact of 10% and not 4% as specified in paragraph 7.2.8. RPS has accepted that their
figure is incorrect. They claim that the diversion would be offset by increased numbers of linked trips
but we have been unable to verify that this would occur nor have wee been provided with any
evidence to corroborate such a statement. Consequently in the absence of any evidence to the
contrary we have not placed weight on this statement.
19
4.19
6.24
The Practice Guidance confirms that a common starting point for an assessment of trade draw is to
consider existing trading patterns within the zone in question. If, for example, a particular town or
facility accounts for the vast majority of expenditure currently generated in a given zone, it is likely
that a similarly higher proportion of the proposals turnover will be diverted from that centre.
Paragraph D.29 states:
“A common starting point for this exercise to consider existing trading patterns within the zone
in question. If, for example, a particular town or facility accounts for the vast majority of
expenditure currently generated in a given zone, it is likely that a similarly higher proportion of
the proposals turnover will be diverted from that centre. (This pre-supposes that the analysis is
looking at expenditure on a like for like basis i.e. convenience or comparison goods, or in some
cases, expenditure patterns for a particular class of comparison goods. e.g. DIY).”
6.25
The additional expenditure clawed back from stores and centres further afield will be focused
primarily on the out of centre Morrisons store in Fakenham which is not protected by policy. Despite
the statements within the RAR that the store will be aimed at the convenience goods sector of the
market which would tend to increase its competitiveness relative to the Costcutter and other
convenience goods outlets in the own centre, we believe that it would afford the opportunity to
improve the retention of main food shopping expenditure which is primarily directed at the larger
stores outside the catchment area.
6.26
Paragraph D38 of the Practice Guidance confirms that in all cases it is important that the impacts are
considered on the vitality and viability of the whole of a centre or centres, not simply on individual
facilities which may be similar to the proposed development. It also advises that having established the
likely catchment area, market position and turnover potential of the proposal, the key factors affecting
judgements about where it will draw its trade from will be determined by:
The intended market sector/role, on the basis that ‘like affects like’; and
Distance, on the basis that consumers will generally use the nearest
centre/facility which meets their needs in terms of quality/convenience.
6.27
Overall therefore in assessing the likely impact on the centre it is relevant to note paragraph 5.10 of
the Practice Guidance. This states:
“In assessing whether an impact is significant, it should be remembered that any new
development involving town centre uses will lead to an impact on existing facilities, and as new
development takes place in one town centre this will enhance its competitive position relative
to other centres. This is a consequence of providing for efficient modern retailing and other key
town centre uses, and promoting choice, competition and innovation.”
6.28
We informed the Council in June 2010 that we believed the detail relating to the impact assessment
was lacking in so far as it provided little information on how the new store would alter the existing
patterns of both main food and top-up expenditure within the catchment area. In respect the letter
from RPS in June indicated that there was sufficient expenditure to support the proposed development
whose turnover would largely be supported by clawing back expenditure spent in food stores further
afield. We accept that the store will lead to improved levels of convenience goods retention within the
catchment area. However in the absence of more detailed evidence of the source and distribution of
trade to the store we do not believe that the Applicant has demonstrated that the scheme would not
have a significant adverse impact on the town centre. In particular we would welcome the submission
of additional information dealing in particular with:
20
4.20
The actual and benchmark8 turnovers of existing convenience goods retailers in
the town centre.
The proportion of their turnover derived from both main food and top-up
shopping.
The proportion of main food shopping and top-up shopping lost from the town’s
catchment area.
The actual diversion from town centre shops in 2016 including an assessment of
the degree to which this would reduce or increase linked shopping trips in the
centre.
Whether the scheme would reduce the choice and range of food and
convenience goods shops in the town centre and the overall impact on its
vitality and viability.
8
Company average turnovers.
21
4.21
7.0
ASSESSMENT AGAINST PLANNING POLICY
(i)
North Norfolk Core Strategy (September 2008)
7.1
The CS sets out an overall vision for Wells which seeks to ensure that it:
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 Wells-Next-the-Sea as a Secondary Settlement where some additional commercial
development will take place. Policy SS5 also identifies it as a Small Town Centre and Policy SS14
encapsulates both designations.
7.3
It would assist in providing jobs, training and career opportunities in accordance with Core Aim 5.
However there is little evidence that it would improve the commercial viability of Wells town centre
nor improve its vitality and viability. Nor can we be sure on the balance of probability and based on
the submitted information that it would not have a significantly adverse impact.
7.4
Policy EC5 is a key policy since it sets out the test applicable to retail development. Paragraph 3.4.18
states that:
“In contrast the smaller towns in the District serve smaller catchments and to varying degrees
have developed a particular niche market role, are remoter and poorly served by roads and
public transport, are dependant upon the seasonal influx of tourists, and retain their locally
distinctive small shop character. Disproportionately large scale development in these smaller
towns may have an adverse impact on their character and thus diminish their attractiveness
as tourist destinations. Furthermore such developments may encourage unnecessary car
journeys from the larger towns. Consequently it is considered that developments here should
be smaller in scale and should be designed to meet identified needs in the town and its
immediate surroundings.”
7.5
The policy requires retail proposals with a net sales area of less than 750 sq.m. to be located within a
defined Primary Shopping Area. The application involving a net sales area of between 500 sq.m. and
750 sq.m. sq.m. does not meet this test. Compliance is therefore required in respect of the four bullet
points identified within the policy. Dealing with each in turn:
Need: There is no longer a requirement to prove that there is a quantitative need for the
development. In our view there is scope to increase the level of convenience goods expenditure
generated within the town’s PCA. In terms of qualitative need, it would improve the range and quality
of food stores in the Wells area.
Sequential approach: For the reasons given in section 5 we are not convinced that the Applicant
has submitted sufficient information for us to be able to confirm compliance with the sequential
approach to site selection.
Impact: It is inevitable that the introduction of a new food store of around 929 sq.m. gross would
have an impact on the town centre and the trading levels within the main stores. The test is whether
this would be significantly adverse. On the basis of the evidence submitted to date a realistic prediction
of its impact on the town centre cannot be quantified.
Accessibility: We have not specifically addressed this issue.
22
4.22
(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 2 of the Framework sets out the Government’s objectives in promoting the vitality of town
centres. The need to comply with the sequential approach and impact tests encapsulated within the
former PPS4 remain.
7.8
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. In particular the Ark Royal PH is available. In
isolation this site may be suitable for the development of a 929 sq.m. gross store including servicing
with some on-site parking and the Applicant has not demonstrated through the submission of
indicative layouts, that this is not achievable. Irrespective part of the adjoining public car park is
potentially capable of being included within a redevelopment scheme which would almost certainly be
capable of delivering the type and scale of food store proposed at Polka Road. Until this option has
been more fully explored and in the light of representations received by the owners of the Ark Royal
PH site, we are unable to conclude that the scheme complies with paragraph 27 of the Framework.
7.10
The scheme would have a negative impact on the town centre which would include a reduction in
trade within the centre itself. The test however is whether it would be significantly adverse and for the
reasons given we are unable to corroborate the Applicant’s conclusions on this matter. Consequently
we do not believe that the Applicant has demonstrated compliance with paragraph 27 of the
Framework.
(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
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
23
4.23
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
Given our conclusions on the submitted information we cannot confirm that the scheme would not
have a significant adverse impact on the town centre nor under such circumstances whether such an
impact could be adequately mitigated through the provision of a financial contribution.
(v) Overall conclusions
7.15
In terms of paragraph 26 of the NPPF we are not aware that the scheme would adversely impact on
existing, committed or planned public and private sector investment in the centre or wider catchment
area. However unless it is possible to discount the Ark Royal PH and adjoining land it is conceivable
that a store at Polka Road would reduce the prospects of developing a food store on a sequentially
preferable site.
24
4.24
8.0
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS
8.1
In the event that the Council is minded to grant planning permission we suggest that a condition be
imposed to control the nature of the proposed use. Paragraph 8.1 of the Practice Guidance states that
conditions should be used to proactively manage the impacts of development including limiting any
internal alterations to increase the amount of gross floorspace by specifying the maximum amount
which is permitted. Similarly the mix of convenience and comparison goods can be controlled.
Paragraph 8.5 states:
“In the case of retail proposals where an impact assessment has been undertaken,
based upon a particular scale of net sales floor space, and the impact and appropriateness
of the scale of development has been judged acceptable, it will normally be appropriate
to impose conditions restricting total net sales area permitted, unless through sensitivity
testing the consequences of different levels of net sales floor space have been fully
examined.”
8.2
A suggested condition could read as follows:
[1] The total area devoted to the display and sale of goods (excluding checkouts) shall be
limited to 560 sq.m. net. Not more than 60 sq.m. net shall be used for the sale of comparison
goods.
8.3
A restriction on other uses within Class A1 should also be considered to reduce the potential for
introducing a pharmacy to reduce the degree to which the store would replicate such provision within
the town centre.
25
4.25
9.0
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
9.1
In accordance with our instruction from the Council we have reviewed the RAR submitted in support
of the planning application.
9.2
We have identified that the grocery sector plays an important role in the national economy and is one
of the sectors which continues to grow and create employment opportunities. Co-operative Societies
have developed a range of medium store sizes which are intended to complement existing shopping
provision while still enabling the stores to meet a proportion of main-food shopping needs. The
scheme will increase the market share of the centre (taken to include the wider area), create
employment opportunities and offer an increase consumer choice. All of these objectives are
consistent with the need to stimulate economic growth and create more sustainable forms of
development as encompassed within the NPPF.
9.4
Such objectives nonetheless require compliance with two key retail tests. The first is in respect of site
selection. The second relates to impact.
9.5
With regard to the assessment of alternative sites we are unable to conclude that the Ark Royal PH
and adjoining public car park is unsuitable and not available.
9.6
On this basis we are unable to confirm on the basis of the submitted information that the scheme
complies with the sequential approach as set out within Policy EC5 of the Core Strategy and with
paragraphs 24 and 27 of the NPPF.
9.7
In respect of the impact on the town centre this would be negative, there being no evidence to suggest
that it would have a positive impact from linked trips, we do not believe on the basis of the available
information that overall it has been demonstrated on the balance of probability that it would not be
significantly adverse and therefore it compliant with Policy EC5 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 26
of the NPPF.
26
4.26