Report by DTZ for
North Norfolk District Council:
Retail and Commercial Leisure
Study 2005
Volume 1
May 2005
DTZ
One Curzon Street
LONDON W1A 5PZ
0207 643 6167
www.dtz.com
Volume 1
Contents
Page
1
Introduction
1
2
The Policy and Regeneration Context
3
3
North Norfolk Centres: SWOT Assessment
16
4
Retail Futures: Capacity Assessment
45
5
Retail Futures: Market Demand Assessment
68
6
Leisure Futures: Market Demand and Capacity Assessment
78
7
Town Centre Futures: Key Findings and Recommendations
89
Volume 2: Appendices
1.
Healthcheck Assessment
2.
Goad Centre Summary Reports
3.
Centre Survey
4.
Household Survey
5.
Demographic & Spend Profile
6.
Retailer Requirements Matrix
7.
Floorspace Statistics
8.
Retail Capacity Assessment: Base Year Assumptions – Explanatory Text
9.
Comparison Goods Retail Capacity Assessment: Scenarios 1 and 1(a)
10.
Comparison Goods Retail Capacity Assessment: Scenarios 2 and 2(a)
11.
Comparison Goods Retail Capacity Assessment: Scenarios 3 and 3(a)
12.
Convenience Goods Retail Capacity Assessment: Scenarios 1 and 1(a)
13.
Convenience Goods Retail Capacity Assessment: Scenarios 2 and 2(a)
14.
Convenience Goods Retail Capacity Assessment: Scenarios 3 and 3(a)
15.
CACI Sports and Lesiure: Participation Profile
Volume 3: Household and Centre Survey Full Tabulations
1.
Centre Survey: Full Tabulations
2.
Household Survey: Full Tabulations
Volume 4: North Norfolk District: Identifying Town Centre
‘Opportunity’ Sites
1.
The Role of Local Authorities
2.
North Norfolk’s Town Centre Opportunity Sites
3.
Summary
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
1
Introduction
Study Objectives
1.01
1.02
DTZ was commissioned by North Norfolk District Council in 2004 to carry out a Retail
and Leisure Study 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
are 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.
This report has been prepared in the context of current national, regional and local
planning policy, including Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres,
published in March 2005. It will be used by the Council to inform and support the case for
new retail and leisure development in the District.
North Norfolk’s Centres: The Context
1.03
North Norfolk District has a population of nearly 100,000 people and approximately half
of these live in its many villages, hamlets and scattered dwellings. The District also has a
number of significant centres, all of which perform different roles and functions. The
Local Plan (adopted in 1998) identifies the following hierarchy (or network) of centres:
•
PRINCIPAL CENTRES - Cromer, Holt, Fakenham and North Walsham offer both
convenience goods for local residents and higher-order comparison goods for a wider
catchment.
•
SMALLER CENTRES - Sheringham, Stalham and Wells-next-the-Sea are mainly
•
orientated towards convenience shopping, although they had no large foodstores at the
time of the local plan. Multiple representation is very limited.
VILLAGE AND LOCAL SHOPS - are situated in residential areas.
1.04
Fakenham and North Walsham are the largest traditional town centres in the District and
they have been identified as growth towns. The Local Plan advises that the majority of
future development should therefore be directed to these two towns.
1.05
Hoveton is also identified as being a unique centre. It is an important gateway centre to
the Norfolk Broads and its retail offer is dominated by Roys. It meets the day-to-day needs
of its local residents and catchment population, as well as serving both tourists and visitors
to the Broads.
1
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
1.06
Nevertheless, despite their attractions, the District’s centres have a more limited scale,
choice and quality of retail and leisure uses relative to larger neighbouring centres in
Norfolk. As a result, there is a significant ‘leakage’ of shoppers and spend from the
District to higher-order comparison goods shopping centres, particularly Norwich, Great
Yarmouth and King’s Lynn.
Report Structure
1.07
1.08
In order to address the key objectives of the study in a robust and comprehensive manner,
we have carried out the following key strands of research:
•
Policy and Regeneration Context (Section 2) – Reviews the current national,
regional and local planning policies which together provide the framework for the
future growth and development of the District’s centres and specifically their retail,
service and leisure offer.
•
North Norfolk Centres: SWOT Assessment (Section 3) – Sets out the headline
results of the healthcheck and benchmarking assessments, along with the key
findings of the centre and household surveys, and highlights each centre’s
strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats.
•
Retail Futures: Capacity Assessment (Section 4) – Assesses the potential
capacity for new convenience and comparison goods retailing, as well as leisure,
across the District up to 2011 and 2016 using DTZ’s Re:Map Model.
•
Retail Futures: Market Demand Assessment (Section 5) – Describes the current
national market trends driving demand for space in the retail sector, and how this is
manifesting itself at the regional and local level.
•
Leisure Futures: Market Demand and Capacity Assessment (Section 6) – This
section describes the key trends driving market demand in the commercial leisure
sector and how this is manifesting itself at the local level.
•
North Norfolk: Town Centre Futures (Section 7) – Draws together the study
findings to set out robust and market-facing strategic options for the future
development and growth of the District’s main centres. This strategic advice will
help to inform the Council’s preparation of its Local Development Framework.
This Volume 1 report should be read in conjunction with Volumes 2 and 3. Volume 2
comprises the more detailed supporting tables, research and DTZ’s commentary on the
healthchecks and survey results. Volume 3 sets out the full tabulations of the household
and centre surveys. Please note that there is also a Volume 4 report which sets out DTZ’s
broad appraisal of the potential of four key opportunity sites in Fakenham, North Walsham
and Cromer for new retail, leisure and mixed use development.
2
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
2
The Policy and Regeneration Context
2.01
This section describes the planning policy and regeneration context relevant to the future
growth and development of North Norfolk’s main centres. This is based on a review of key
national, regional and local policies, along with relevant planning and regeneration
documents.
National Planning Policy Context
•
First Wave – occurred from the late 1960’s onwards and has involved the major food
operators moving out-of-centre, to free standing superstores and hypermarkets.
•
Second Wave – occurred from the late 1970’s and involved the emergence of new
‘bulky goods’ operators opening in first generation stand-alone retail warehouse units,
before moving to more sophisticated actively managed retail park clusters.
•
Third Wave – began in the mid-1980’s, following the opening of Metro Centre in
Gateshead, and involved department and fashion stores, traditionally located on the
High Street, taking space in free-standing Regional Shopping Centres (RSC).
•
Fourth Wave – occurred in the 1990’s and involved the growth of warehouse clubs
and factory outlet shopping centres, (such as Bicester Village and Cheshire Oaks).
Figure 2.1 clearly illustrates the significant growth of the second and third waves of retail
development since the mid-1980s.
Figure 2.1: UK Annual Shopping Centre Development (‘000 sq.m)
1600
Town Centre
Out of Town
Retail Parks
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
20
03
20
01
19
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
19
87
19
85
19
83
19
81
19
79
19
77
19
75
19
73
19
71
19
69
0
19
67
2.03
Since the 1980’s there has been a dramatic change in Britain’s urban and retail landscape
driven by a range of socio-economic, demographic and property market trends. Retail,
leisure, entertainment and employment activities shifted from the high street to out-oftown locations, impacting on the vitality and viability of many of Britain’s cities and
towns. The decentralisation of new retail development has been described as the ‘four
waves’:
19
65
2.02
3
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
2.04
At the same time Britain’s town and city centres have radically changed in their
appearance and function during the last thirty years. In some cases the traditional
streetscapes of small shops, mixed with office, residential and other uses, have been
replaced by large shopping malls. For example, research by the British Council of
Shopping Centres1 (BCSC, 2001) indicated that there were some 1,500 shopping centres in
the UK at the end of 2000, which represented a 10% increase in space (+21 million square
metres) over just two years. Partly as a result of this dramatic growth in shopping centre
space, many of Britain’s larger towns and cities are now dominated by a number of major
multiple retailers, to a much greater extent than other centres in Western Europe.
2.05
This decentralisation of key uses and activities from their traditional high street locations
resulted in a significant shift in Government thinking and policy from the mid-1990s
onwards. The production of Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) during the 1990s
effectively strengthened the role of the planning system and placed increased emphasis on
sustainable mixed-use development, underpinned by high quality urban design. In
particular, both PPG6 ‘Town Centres and Retail Development’ (1996) and PPG13
‘Transport’ (2001) significantly curbed the growth of new out-of-centre retail and leisure
developments.
2.06
The publication of the Urban White Paper (2000) -‘Our Towns and Cities: The Future’ also reinforced the Government’s thinking on urban renewal. It provides another explicit
statement of the main objective to reverse town centre decline. Amongst its many
recommendations, is the vision of vibrant mixed-use urban areas, characterised by thriving
daytime and evening economies. In contrast to the privately owned and managed shopping
centres that have developed over the last 20 years, it forwards a vision of public spaces,
where retailing and leisure businesses provide the backdrop to thriving urban communities.
Town centres are seen as places to live, as well destinations for a range of shopping,
leisure, employment, cultural and entertainment activities.
2.07
The original PPGs are currently in the process of being updated, in line with the
Government’s wider revisions to the planning system. The replacement for PPG6 Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 6: ‘Planning for Town Centres’ - was published in
March 2005 and a number of ‘daughter’ guidance papers are scheduled to follow,
including guidance on undertaking assessments of need and impact for retail and leisure
uses, as well as preparing strategies for smaller centres.
2.08
Many of the policies set out in PPS6 reproduce, or are closely based on, existing policies in
PPG6. At its launch the Planning Minister emphasised the “town centres first” message,
stating that: “…the creation of thriving town centres that provide local people with retail,
leisure and other facilities they need is of critical importance to our vision of sustainable
communities”.
2.09
It is clearly the Government’s intention that PPS6 will drive the renaissance of towns and
cities, large and small, in rural and urban areas. The Government want to see a sustainable
mix of high quality development that enhances consumer choice and meets the needs of
the entire community, thereby promoting social inclusion and economic growth. PPS6
reinforces the message in PPS1 that sustainable development is the core principle
underpinning planning.
1
BCSC. ‘Managing the Retail-Led Development of the Future’, British Council of Shopping Centres. 2001
4
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
2.10
2.11
Local planning authorities and regional planning bodies are key to the delivery of town
centre renaissance and sustainable development. PPS6 encourages them to be more proactive in planning positively for the growth and development of their towns, working
closely with the community and key stakeholders, including developers, retailers and
leisure operators (para 2.15). It specifically states that local authorities should (para 1.6):
•
Develop a hierarchy and network of centres.
•
Assess the need for further main town centre uses and ensure there is the capacity to
accommodate them.
•
Focus development in, and plan for the expansion of, existing centres as appropriate,
and at the local level, identify appropriate sites in development plan documents.
•
Promote town centre management, creating partnerships to develop, improve, and
maintain the town centre, and manage the evening and night-time economy.
•
Regularly monitor and review the impact and effectiveness of their policies for
promoting vital and viable town centres.
Some of the headline policies and principles contained in PPS6 are briefly highlighted
below. It specifically states, for example, that local planning authorities should:
•
focus development in existing centres in order to strengthen and, where appropriate,
regenerate them (para. 2.1).
•
use tools such as area action plans, CPO and town centre strategies (para. 2.18) to
address the complex issues associated with the growth and management of their
centres (para. 2.2).
•
plan for either the extension of the primary shopping area, or for the extension of the
town centre, where growth cannot be accommodated in existing centres (para. 2.5).
•
designate new centres in areas of significant growth where the need for them has been
established, or where deficiencies are identified in the existing network of centres,
with priority given to deprived areas2 (paras. 2.7 and 2.53).
•
assess the scope for consolidating and strengthening existing centres that are in
decline. Where this is not possible, it should be recognised that these centres may
need to be reclassified at a lower level within the hierarchy (para. 2.8).
•
along with regional planning bodies, consider whether there is a need to rebalance the
network of centres to ensure that it is not overly dominated by the larger centres; that
there is a more even distribution of town centre uses; and that people’s everyday needs
are met at the local level (paras. 2.9 and 2.57).
•
formulate planning policies that encourage well designed, and, where appropriate,
higher density, multi-storey development in and around existing centres (para.2.20).
•
encourage diversification of uses in centres, and ensure that tourism, leisure and
cultural activities, which appeal to a wide range of age and social groups, are
dispersed throughout the centre (para. 2.22).
•
prepare planning policies to help manage the evening and night-time economy in
appropriate centres (para. 2.23).
2
Areas which are experiencing significant levels of “multiple deprivation” are typically those within the most deprived 10% of
“super output areas”, as identified in the English Indices of Deprivation and defined by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD).
5
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
seek to retain and enhance existing markets and, where appropriate, re-introduce or
create new ones, as an integral part of the vision for their town centres (para. 2.27).
•
in assessing proposed developments, require applicants to demonstrate the need for
development (paras. 3.8 – 3.11); that it is of an appropriate scale (para. 3.12); that
there are no more central sites for the development (paras. 3.13 – 3.19); that there are
no unacceptable impacts on existing centres (paras. 3.20 - 3.23); and that it is
accessible (paras. 3.24 – 3.27).
•
set out an indicative upper limit for the scale of a development which is likely to be
acceptable in particular centres for different facilities (para 3.12).
•
consider the use of planning conditions to ensure that the character of a development
cannot subsequently be changed to create a form of development that the Local
Planning Authority would originally have refused (para.3.31). Thus, where
appropriate, conditions can be used to prevent developments being sub-divided into
smaller units; limit the range of goods to be sold; and limit any internal alterations to
existing units by specifying the maximum floorspace permitted.
•
undertake comprehensive, relevant and up-to-date monitoring (based on the key
indicators set out in para 4.4) to inform the review of site allocations and town centre
policies and enable early signs of change of town centres to be identified and
appropriate action to be taken (para 4.1).
2.12
Central to the advice set out in PPS6 are the sequential approach to site selection and the
assessment of need and impact.
2.13
The policies and principles underpinning the sequential approach are set out in more
detail in Volume 4. In brief, this approach has had possibly the most significant impact on
the location and scale of new retail and leisure developments since it was first included in
the 1996 PPG6, effectively slowing the ‘waves’ of out-of-centre development to a ‘trickle’.
PPS6 reaffirms and expands the definition of the sequential approach, which now states
that local authorities should consider potential locations for new development in the
following order (para 2.44):
• existing centres first; then
• edge-of-centre locations3 - with preference given to sites that are (or will be) well
connected to the centre; and finally
• out-of-centre sites4 - with preference given to sites that are (or will be) well served by
a choice of means of transport, which are close to the centre and therefore have a high
likelihood of forming strong links with the centre.
3
For retail purposes ‘edge-of-centre’ is defined as a location that is well connected to and within easy walking distance (ie. up to
300 metres) of the primary shopping area. For all other main town centre uses, this is likely to be within 300 metres of a town
centre boundary. Local circumstances should be taken into account such as local topography, perceptions of easy walking
distance, barriers to movement and the attractiveness/ safety of the route.
4
‘Out-of-centre’ is defined as a location that is not in or on the edge of a centre, but neither is it necessarily outside the urban
area. This definition differs from ‘out-of-town’, which is essentially outside the urban area.
6
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
2.14
The Government’s aim is to locate the appropriate type and scale of development in the
right type of centre, to ensure that it fits in to that centre and complements its role and
function (para. 2.41). In doing this, local planning authorities should be sensitive to the
needs of the community and stakeholders, including developers and operators, and identify
sites that are, or are likely to become available for development during the development
plan document period. The identified sites should allow for the accommodation of the
identified need and be capable of accommodating a range of business models. In planning
terms, the business model approach includes the scale and format of new development, car
parking provision and the scope for disaggregation (para 2.45). A significant revision from
the draft version of PPS6 is the requirement for the sequential approach to be applied to all
proposed extensions over 200 sq.m gross.
2.15
In terms of the assessment of need and impact, PPS6 takes forward previous guidance
and Ministerial Statements. It states that local planning authorities should place greater
weight on quantitative need for additional floorspace for the specific types of retail and
leisure development. Significantly, it is not necessary to demonstrate the need or impact of
retail proposals within the primary shopping area, or for other main town centre uses
located within the town centre (para.3.8). PPS6 confirms that local authorities should also
take account of qualitative considerations, specifically deprived areas that lack access to a
range of services and facilities (paras.2.33 and 3.11). However, additional benefits in
respect of regeneration and employment do not constitute indicators of need for additional
floorspace, although they may be material considerations in the site selection process
depending on local circumstances (para. 2.37).
2.16
The shift in the Government’s policy and thinking on the scale and location of new retail
and leisure development since the mid-1990s, culminating in the publication of the new
PPS6, has created new optimism, new visions and new designs for town centres.
However, research shows that there is increasing polarisation in investment and market
shares between the top shopping locations and smaller centres. Many smaller and
medium-sized urban and rural centres, such as those in North Norfolk, have suffered from
reduced investment over a number of years, as developers and operators have targeted
“less risky” town centre and out-of-centre locations in larger neighbouring town and city
centres, such as Norwich.
2.17
This is confirmed by research carried out by DTZ and others, which shows that the ‘top
100’ shopping locations in the UK account for approximately half of the total floorspace in
the pipeline, and they are also the main focus for new investment and market demand.
Furthermore, research shows that the 200 largest centres have increased their market share
of comparison goods sales from 50% in 1971 to almost 75% in 1998, with the top 75
centres accounting for half of all comparison goods sales in the UK(1).
2.18
As a result, retail centres are becoming increasingly polarised between a small number of
larger centres with high and growing comparison goods sales (such as Norwich), and a
large number of smaller centres with relatively constant, or declining sales. The challenge
over the medium to long-term is to balance new investment and development such that it
benefits Britain’s smaller and secondary centres. The increased planning restrictions on
out-of-centre development and the focus on “town centres first”, through the sequential
approach, may provide an opportunity for some smaller centres to grow, but only if they
are able to offer suitable and commercially viable development and investment
opportunities.
(1)
The National Retail Planning Forum (November 2004) ‘The Role and Vitality of Secondary Shopping - a New Direction’
7
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
Regional Planning Policy and Regeneration Context
2.19
The key planning and regeneration policy documents at the regional level include the East
of England plan (the Regional Spatial Strategy of the East of England); and the Norfolk
Structure Plan. The main issues and polices are briefly reviewed below.
(i) Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)
2.20
In April 2001 East Anglia merged with Hertfordshire, Essex and Bedfordshire to form the
East of England Region. The East of England Regional Planning Body (EERA) has
prepared the draft East of England Plan which sets out the regional spatial strategy (draft
RSS) for planning and development in the East of England to the year 2021.
2.21
The draft RSS will eventually replace the existing regional spatial strategy comprising
RPG6 – East Anglia (comprising Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk); RPG9 – South
East (including Bedfordshire, Luton, Essex, Southend-on-Sea, Thurrock and
Hertfordshire); along with RPG9(a) and RPG9(b) (Thames Gateway and River Thames
respectively as they apply to Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock). The existing
Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia is contained in RPG6. In relation to North
Norfolk, therefore RPG6 is most relevant.
2.22
The consultation period for the draft RSS ended on the 16th of March 2005. The next stage
is for an independent panel to analyse and consider all the representations received.5
2.23
The draft RSS sets out a range of key objectives, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
2.24
increasing prosperity and employment growth to meet identified employment
needs of the region.
improving social inclusion and access to employment, services, leisure and tourist
facilities among those who are disadvantaged.
maintaining and enhancing cultural diversity, while addressing the distinctive
needs of different parts of the region.
increasing the regeneration and renewal of disadvantaged areas.
sustaining and enhancing the vitality and viability of town centres.
making more use of previously developed land and existing buildings, and using
land more efficiently, in meeting future development needs.
Some of the key policies in the draft RSS include Policy E10 on retailing, which states
that:
•
•
New retail development will be located in existing centres and will be consistent
in scale with the size and character of the centre and its role in the regional
structure.
Local development documents should propose a higher order provision only
where a need is clearly established; it will result in a more sustainable pattern of
development and movement, including a reduction in the need to travel; there is
no significant detrimental impact on other centres or the transport network; and
there is environmental capacity. Any new regional centres will be subject to
similar considerations and will be brought forward only as part of a review of the
RSS.
5
The East of England Regional Assembly suspended its endorsement of the Plan due to lack of central government funding for
essential infrastructure. However, the Assembly has reiterated its commitment to the public consultation on the draft East of
England Plan in order to gauge response and gather comments on the development proposals.
8
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
•
In the Sustainable Communities Plan growth areas, local development documents
will propose development of retail and services in new and existing centres in
accordance with sub-regional strategies and policies
Local development documents will consider the role of retail within priority areas
for regeneration, and will propose development and enhancement to implement
regeneration strategies.
2.25
Policy SS11 on priority areas for regeneration states that the spatial strategy aims to secure
sustainable economic, social and environmental development across the whole of the East
of England, in both urban and rural areas. The priority areas for regeneration are areas with
weak economic performance and high deprivation. This includes Thames Gateway South
Essex sub-region; Great Yarmouth and Waveney; Kings Lynn and West Norfolk; the
remote rural areas of Norfolk and Suffolk, and the Fens
2.26
Policy SS15 is also relevant and states that the strategy for the coast is to ensure a balanced
policy that recognises the economic and social role of coastal ports and tourism areas, and
the need for environmental protection and enhancement of the coast. Heritage Coasts have
been designated on the Suffolk and Norfolk coasts.
2.27
The current RPG6 provided a vision for East Anglia to:
•
•
•
•
maintain and improve economic opportunities.
increase social equity.
protect and enhance the environment.
conserve natural resources.
2.28
RPG6 recognised that approximately 60% of the region’s population live in small towns,
villages and hamlets. Although these areas suffer from a lack of good quality services and
facilities, they do benefit a higher quality of life, as well as less congestion, pollution and
crime than in other parts of the country. It states that existing trends will need to be
modified if the region is to develop in a sustainable way in terms of ensuring that services
across the region are more closely integrated with each other and to transport provision.
2.29
RPG6 also states that growth will be accommodated in the main urban centres, but also
recognises that market towns have a key role in providing a range of service and
employment opportunities for their surrounding areas. The plan recognises that the north
and east of the region is less buoyant than the south, and it highlights the need to retain
rural services and improve rural employment opportunities in these locations.
2.30
The objectives of draft RSS are therefore similar to those in RPG6, although greater
emphasis is placed on sustainable development and the regional economic strategy. It
contains a vision to sustain and improve the quality of life for all people who live, work
and visit the East of England, through developing a more sustainable, prosperous and
outward-looking region, while respecting its diversity and enhancing its assets. It
recognises that attractive and thriving town centres are fundamental and as such they
should be the focus for investment, environmental enhancement and regeneration. It also
states the need to support, enhance and develop the role of all centres and highlights the
importance of co-operation between local authorities.
2.31
The draft RSS states that development in rural areas will be focused in market towns and
thereafter in key service centres. Development in rural areas should therefore seek to:
•
•
improve accessibility to towns by public transport from surrounding areas.
extend provision for shopping facilities and services.
9
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
•
•
2.32
improve access to high-speed communications technology.
protect local character
encourage change and enable diversification of the economy.
In this context, the remote areas of Norfolk are therefore a priority for regeneration.
(ii) Norfolk Structure Plan 1999 (1993-2011)
2.33
The Structure Plan provides a framework for the future pattern of development in Norfolk.
In terms of retail development, it sets out a functional hierarchy of centres, which it seeks
to improve and enhance. There are no regional or sub-regional centres identified in North
Norfolk, only large and small town centres, village and local centres. Cromer is the only
large centre in Norfolk which is not identified for residential growth, due to the limited
amount of employment land available and environmental constraints.
2.34
The Plan also recognises that larger market towns present good opportunities to develop as
rural centres, with smaller towns acting as local centres, where employment, services and
facilities can be developed to strengthen rural areas.
2.35
In North Norfolk, the Structure Plan highlights the need for a balance between adequate
provision for development and the need to conserve and enhance the natural and built
environment.
2.36
A recent Issues Report identified a range of economic drivers which are likely to lead to
growth in the retail and leisure sectors in Norfolk including population growth, a rise in
incomes and increased consumer goods consumption. It also highlighted the importance of
retail as a source of employment and the significance of the link between retailing and
tourism.
Local Planning Policy and Regeneration Context
2.37
The key planning and regeneration policy documents at the local level include the North
Norfolk Local Plan (Adopted April 1998) and the Settlements Strategies prepared by the
District Council in 2003. The main issues and polices are briefly reviewed below.
(i) The North Norfolk Local Plan
2.38
Over half of North Norfolk’s population live in its many villages, hamlets and scattered
dwellings. As a result of this (and the poor public transport infrastructure), car ownership
is high. A quarter of the population is also over 60 years old, creating a significant need to
ensure that appropriate services are provided for this sector of the population.
2.39
The Local Plan has a strong environmental basis. It highlights the significance of the
District’s natural environment, which has various national and local designations. The
quality and distinctive character of the built environment is also given high priority.
2.40
The Local Plan contains a development strategy that identities areas where development is
to be encouraged and where it is to be restrained. There are three main categories as
follows:
•
Growth towns – Development to be directed here. Fakenham and North Walsham are
considered to be capable of accommodating most of North Norfolk’s development
needs.
10
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
Small towns and large villages – Limited development opportunities. In Cromer,
Holt, Sheringham, Stalham and Wells-next-the-Sea development proposals will be
permitted provided that they are compatible with the existing character of these
settlements. In the large villages of Briston/Melton Constable, Hoveton and Mundesley
a limited amount of additional development will be permitted within their designated
boundaries without detriment to their existing character.
•
Small villages and the countryside - restraint.
2.41
In addition, to the development strategy, the Local Plan contains a series of land-use policy
areas in order to establish the broad character and primary use, or uses, of different parts of
settlements.
2.42
In town centres and large village centres, the Plan encourages a broad range of uses as long
as they are compatible with maintaining retailing as the prime function of each centre. The
following hierarchy of centres is identified:
•
Principal Centres - Cromer, Holt, Fakenham and North Walsham generally serve
the convenience goods needs of local residents and higher-order comparison goods
for the wider area.
•
Smaller Centres - Sheringham, Stalham and Wells-next-the-Sea are mainly
orientated towards local convenience shopping.
•
Village and Local Shops – serving the local needs of other residential areas.
2.43
Hoveton is also identified as a unique centre with a wide retail offer given its small
population. The centre is dominated by stores operated by a single company, including a
supermarket and a department store. There are also several clothing shops and specialist
outlets, such as an angling shop and marine wear shop. Hoveton is considered to function
similarly to an out-of-town facility and also serves tourists visiting the Norfolk Broads.
2.44
The Local Plan outlines key objectives for new retail development, namely to:
2.45
•
maintain and enhance existing shopping centres to encourage new investment in
shopping and associated facilities, and to provide attractive and pleasant shopping
environments.
•
protect the character of historic town centres from unsympathetic development and to
promote uses compatible with the historic character of towns.
•
control the introduction of non-shopping uses within the core shopping areas of town
centres.
•
control the development of shopping schemes that are located on out-of-centre sites.
•
support the retention of village shops.
•
allow the provision of local shops within residential areas to meet day-to-day needs.
The Plan supports the identification of Core Retail Areas within town centres. These are
areas where only town centre uses directly concerned with shopping and related
commercial activities are acceptable at ground-floor level. Other town centre uses are
encouraged on upper floors, with a view to securing the overall vitality and viability of
town centres and the conservation of the fabric of historic buildings. It also highlights the
need for continued investment, environmental improvements and town centre management
strategies to enhance the overall quality and attractiveness of town centres.
11
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
2.46
The Local Plan makes specific reference to amusement centres in North Norfolk, which
tend to be located in the coastal tourist towns. The Plan recognises that there is pressure to
locate more amusement centres within the District, but it notes that amusement centres
should not be located outside of these locations. This is to protect the amenity and
character of North Norfolk’s town centres. There are two designated Holiday
Entertainment Areas in Cromer and Sheringham, which are the only areas where new
amusement centres will be permitted.
2.47
Various additional retail needs are identified including the requirement for convenience
floorspace in Fakenham, North Walsham, Sheringham and Stalham. The plan notes that
large-scale developments in town centres are not always appropriate. It therefore permits
the possibility of out-of-town development, but only where more central locations cannot
be identified and developed satisfactorily.
(ii) The ‘Whole Settlement Strategies’ (2003)
2.48
In 2003 North Norfolk District Council produced Settlement Strategies for the District’s
main centres (apart from Hoveton). These strategies were the product of an extensive
public participation exercise carried out in 2001 and 2002, which included stakeholder
workshops, interactive exhibitions and targeted sessions in each of the centres. In brief,
these strategies outline:
•
The roles that each town fulfil within North Norfolk, including perceptions of the
towns and their various functions and services.
•
The issues that need to be addressed, specifically relating to the physical environment,
community and social aspects of the towns and their economies.
•
The broad aims for future development of the towns, particularly focusing on land-use
issues
•
The objectives that will help to establish these aims.
2.49
North Norfolk District Council has subsequently adopted the strategies as Council Policy
to help guide the future development of the main centres.
2.50
DTZ’s retail and leisure study will update and build on the findings and recommendations
of these Settlement Strategies, to provide robust and realistic guidance as part of the
production of the LDF. We do not propose to review each strategy in detail. However,
Table 2.1 provides a brief summary of some of the main points with regard to the roles,
issues, aims and objectives for each centre as shopping and leisure destinations.
12
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
Table 2.1: North Norfolk District ‘Whole Settlement Strategies’, 2003
STALHAM
CROMER
HOLT
SHERINGHAM
Role
Issues
Aims & Objectives
Good range of local shops and popular
market. But “struggling to hang on to its
role as a service centre” and leakage of
shoppers to larger neighbouring centres in
District and beyond. New Tesco should
help to ‘claw back’ some of this leakage.
Potential decline of range of shops on High
Street and increase in number of take-aways.
Limited facilities for young and need for more
social / community facilities.
• To reinforce the role of the High St as the commercial centre of the
town.
One of the District’s largest shopping
centres, but has a limited range of shops
and a relatively tight catchment. The outof-centre foodstores also have poor
linkages with the High St. Its role as a
seaside tourist destination is declining and
it mainly attracts elderly people and
people seeking ‘cheap holidays’. It also
has limited leisure facilities for young
people.
Increasing ‘leakage’ of shoppers and spend to
neighbouring centres in the District and beyond
with greater choice of shops and facilities. It
lacks a year-round tourist attraction and its
accommodation caters for the lower-end of the
market. The cinema is a major asset to the town
centre, but there is an identified need for a
swimming pool / leisure complex.
It is a specialist shopping destination
rather than a market town, characterised
by a wide range of shops, galleries, cafés
and pubs. It attracts year-round tourists
and the town’s attractive environment is a
major asset.
Town is a “victim of its own success” and
parking is an issue. The town lacks a farmers
market and leisure facilities for young. There
are also concerns about the potential threat of
out-of-centre retailing on the town centre’s
future vitality and viability.
• To maintain a healthy and diverse town centre that caters both for
local residents and tourists.
It functions as both a market town and a
resort town. However it lacks a modern
foodstore and people generally shop in
Cromer for their main weekly food
purchases and in Norwich for their higher
comparison goods purchases. It attracts
visitors/tourists throughout the year and
has a range of accommodation, from high
quality hotels to budget self-catering.
Tourism is a major source of income and
employment. It also has a range of leisure
and recreational facilities.
There is a need for an appropriately sized
supermarket on a town centre site. Amusement
Arcades are out of character with the street
scene and can be noisy and obtrusive. There are
conflicts between pedestrians and traffic in the
town centre and there is a lack of safe
cycleways. The high quality environment of the
town and its surroundings is a major attraction
and thus an economic asset.
• To support its role as a market town and service centre for the
surrounding area and to maintain its attraction as a tourist destination.
• To ensure the town is accessible by all modes of travel and that it is
safe and accessible for pedestrians.
• To identify a suitable site for a new supermarket as close to the town
centre as possible.
• To limit Amusement Arcades to the area identified on the existing
local plan (12-24 The High Street, evens inclusive).
• To enable the provision of a range of visitor accommodation provided
it does not detract from any of the town’s assets.
• To improve leisure facilities for young and sports/community facilities
for all age groups.
• To develop safe and convenient access between the High St and the
Saleground site.
• To restore Cromer’s function as a market town to help retain local
spend, increase its catchment and improve year-round attraction.
• Prevent new out-of-centre development and establish a central
location for the market. Create better links with existing out-of-centre
facilities.
• To complement the offer in other towns in the District and beyond.
• Promote the town as a leisure and entertainment centre for local
residents and tourists.
• To resist proposals for out-of-centre retailing.
• To protect the town’s tourism assets, by ensuring all new attractions
and accommodation have adequate infrastructure and parking, and
providing facilities that cater for non car-borne visitors.
13
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
FAKENHAM
WELLS
NORTH
WALSHAM
Role
Issues
Aims & Objectives
Serves as a hub to a wide rural hinterland.
Whilst the day-to-day shopping needs of
the population are met, the range of shops
in the town is limited. There are a number
of visitor attractions in the area and the
town itself has much to offer, including
the racecourse, historic market place,
museum and Parish Church. However,
there is some concern that the town’s
population growth has not been matched
by the growth in the level of service
provision (specifically schools, doctors
surgeries and sports facilities).
The town centre is rarely busy and there are too
many cafés. The central market place is not
used for most of the week. Current parking
restrictions and traffic management measures
deter short stay ‘top-up’ shoppers. There are
few facilities for young people in the town and
most young people wanted a sports
centre/swimming pool. The town does not tap
into the tourism market as much as it could and
many passing motorists do not stop because
they do not realise what it has to offer. The
facilities and attractions in and around the town
are also poorly linked. For example, racecourse
visitors do not tend to use the town centre.
• To make Fakenham the preferred shopping destination for local
residents and to attract more people to the town centre.
Considering its size, the town provides a
good range of shops, services and
community facilities catering for the dayto-day needs of its fairly small catchment.
Residents rely on the larger towns for
main shopping needs and other uses. It is
an attractive historic town and attracts
tourists for its proximity to the fine
beaches and countryside, as well as other
attractions such as Holkham Hall.
Tourism is fundamental to the town,
making a major contribution to its
economy.
The large number of visitors at peak times puts
pressure on the town and its surroundings. This
results in congested roads and a shortage of car
parking spaces. Tourism is seasonal, the vast
majority of visitors coming only over the
summer months. The harbour has far greater
potential as a visitor attraction than is realised at
present.
Whilst the town has a range of shops that
generally meet peoples day-to-day needs,
it is not a significant centre for major
purchases, specialist or recreational
shopping. The Lidl and extension to the
Sainsbury’s foodstore are likely to remove
the possibility of an out-of-centre
supermarket in the medium term.
The retail offer is limited and there are too many
units occupied by non-shopping uses. The
Sainsbury’s supermarket is located away from
the town centre and pedestrian access between
the two is extremely poor.
The town’s
population growth has not been matched by
growth in the level of service provision. There
are no facilities in the town for cyclists and the
railway station is unattractive and has
inadequate parking. Traffic circulation around
the town is confusing, poorly signposted and
suffers from bottlenecks on certain routes.
• To encourage more visitors to the town.
• To ensure that there is adequate parking and that sign posts to the town
centre from the car parks are attractive.
• To improve signage to the town centre from the outskirts to attract
visitors.
• To develop a multi-use sports centre on a site to the north of the High
School, with lottery funding.
• To
maintain
and
expand
community/recreational facilities.
the
shops
services
and
• To meet the needs of visitors without harming the character of the
town and the quality of its environment.
• To ensure that there are adequate facilities, infrastructure and car
parking to cater for peak demand.
• To restrict all commercial development to locations within the town.
• To support development that enables the town to tap into specialist
tourist markets.
• To enhance the harbour and to ensure that all new visitor attractions
and accommodation have adequate infrastructure and parking.
• To protect the role of the town centre as the focus for retail
development to encourage the development of large retail units.
• To maintain an attractive town centre environment.
• To create a pedestrian link between Sainsbury’s supermarket and town
centre, passing through North Street car park.
• To ensure that the town centre is safe and accessible for pedestrians.
14
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
Summary
2.51
Britain’s urban and retail landscape has been transformed since the 1980’s. The growth of
out-of-centre retailing means that the High Street no longer enjoys a monopoly of shopping
trips and spend. Out-of-centre shops and shopping centres now account for a significant
market share of customer spend and total retail floorspace. This long-term movement of
businesses, shoppers, workers and residents out of Britain’s cities and town centres has had
a significant impact on their overall vitality and viability.
2.52
Over recent years, however, there has been a dramatic change in the Government’s
thinking and policy. The policy advice since the mid-1990’s, culminating in the
publication of PPS6, has reinforced the “town centres first” message. Town centres are at
the heart of the Government’s vision for sustainable communities and local and regional
planning bodies are viewed as the key to the delivery of Britain’s town centre renaissance
and high quality, mixed-use, sustainable developments, investment and growth of their
town and city centres as part of the development plan process.
2.53
To date, however, the urban renaissance has largely been enjoyed by Britain’s larger town
and city centres, as they represent less “risky” commercial propositions for investors,
developers and occupiers. The “challenge” for local authorities over the next decade or
more is to widen the urban renaissance agenda to encompass the smaller urban and rural
centres. This is the “challenge” that currently faces North Norfolk District. The remaining
sections of the study “drill down” into the opportunities and threats facing the District’s
main centres, and offers up DTZ’s recommendations of a sustainable and commercially
viable strategy.
15
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
3
North Norfolk Centres: SWOT Assessment
3.01
This section sets out the relative strengths and weaknesses of North Norfolk’s main centres,
and identifies the potential opportunities and threats to their future vitality and viability.
The headline findings are based on the following four key strands of research:
Centre Healthcheck and Benchmarking Assessments – DTZ has conducted detailed
healthchecks for each of the District’s eight main centres. This analysis draws on
Experian Goad datasets and is supplemented by detailed audits carried out by DTZ in
each of the centres. As part of this analysis, DTZ has also benchmarked the North
Norfolk centres against other major neighbouring centres in the region, namely
Norwich, Great Yarmouth, Kings Lynn and East Dereham. The full results of our
District-wide analysis are set out in Appendix 1.
Centre Surveys – Over 650 surveys were undertaken across the District’s eight main
study centres during August/September 2004. These surveys have helped to identify
the catchment areas of each centre, as well as perceptions of the centres as places to
shop, work and visit for a variety of activities and uses. The more detailed results of
the centre surveys are set out in Volume 3.
Household Surveys – Some 1000 telephone interviews were conducted across North
Norfolk District and its surrounding areas during September 2004. This survey has
helped to establish the District’s relative inflow and outflow of shoppers, as well as
views on the relative retail and leisure offer of the study centres. This survey is
described in more detail in Volume 3.
Catchment areas – DTZ has defined the broad catchment areas of the study centres
using 10 minute off-peak drive time bands. Based on the results of the centre surveys,
it has been possible to identify the origins of people interviewed in each centre and,
therefore, the broad market penetration and draw of the District’s main centres. Please
note that this catchment area definition differs from the ‘core’ and ‘secondary’ areas
which provide the framework for the retail capacity assessment. The areas are based on
the survey zones used for the household survey and the ‘core’ is broadly equivalent to
the North Norfolk District(see Section 4).
3.02
The headline findings of DTZ’s research for each centre are set out below. This analysis
has also been prepared in the context of the District Council’s Settlement Strategies, which
were published in 2003.
1. Fakenham
3.03
The town lies to the south-west of the District and is identified as a ‘principal centre’ in the
1998 Local Plan, along with Cromer, Holt and North Walsham. It is also identified as one
of the District’s growth centres. Almost all of the town centre is designated as a
Conservation Area. The headline results of the research are as follows:
(i) Healthcheck
3.04
Appendix 1 provides a more detailed commentary of the centre’s relative health
benchmarked against the District’s other main centres and the larger neighbouring centres
in the region. The key findings are as follows:
•
Floorspace – Fakenham is the largest centre in the District, with over 23,000 sq.m of
retail and service floorspace. Nevertheless, Figure 3.1 shows that it is significantly
smaller than the larger shopping centres in the region, namely Norwich, Great Yarmouth
and Kings Lynn.
16
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
Retail Ranking – It is currently ranked 1,063rd (out of approximately 1,670 centres) by
Management Horizons and has fallen over 300 places in the retail rankings since 1999.
This fall reflects the lack of new investment and development in the town, compared
with other centres in the national ranking.
•
Multiple Offer – It has limited multiple representation, although its offer is greater than
other centres in the District. Apart from Budgens in Millers Walk, the larger units and
multiples in the town centre have frontages on to Market Place and the Square,
including Woolworths, Boots, Currys and the Aldiss department store.
•
Managed Centres – Millers Walk is a small single-level precinct, comprising 14 outlets
and is anchored by Budgens. It is the only shopping centre in the District.
•
Convenience Offer – Figure 3.2 shows that Fakenham has a below average
representation of convenience goods floorspace and outlets. There is a specific underprovision of bakers, health food shops and off-licences. Apart from Budgens, the
modern convenience goods offer is the out-of-centre Morrisons (formerly Safeway) and
Rainbow Co-Op stores. These stores do not appear in the (town centre) Goad data.
•
Comparison Offer – The offer is mainly orientated towards middle and lower order
goods. It lacks the critical mass of fashion shopping and larger units to draw trade from
a wider area. Those fashion retailers that are represented (such as Mackays and Stead
and Simpson) are mainly targeted at the value end of the market.
•
Department and Variety Stores – Fakenham has two major Aldiss stores. The first is
a small two level store in the prime shopping area and the second is a large store on the
edge of the town centre, primarily selling furniture items.
•
Service Offer – As with the other larger North Norfolk centres, Fakenham has a strong
representation of service outlets. Approximately 37.1% of its outlets are service based,
which is slightly above national average.
•
Cafés, restaurants and bars – Fakenham has a below average representation of public
houses and wine bars (Figure 3.3), but a slightly higher provision of restaurants
(predominantly based around Chinese and Indian cuisine). However, there are currently
no multiple/branded bars in the town centre.
17
ol
t
G
B
N
Av
or
fo
lk
A
v.
H
Ho
v
G
t Y eto
n
ar
m
ou
th
W
el
No ls
rw
ic
h
St
al
Sh
ha
m
er
in
gh
am
Ki
ng
s
Ly
N
nn
W
al
sh
am
Fa
ke
nh
am
C
ro
m
E
De er
re
ha
m
% Outlets
el
ls
Sh alh
a
er
in m
gh
H am
N
ov
or
th
e
W ton
Ea a
l
s
st
h
D am
er
eh
C am
ro
K
in m e
gs
r
Ly
N nn
or
Fa wic
ke h
nh
am
G
t Y Ho
lt
ar
m
ou
G th
N BA
or
f o v.
lk
A
v.
St
W
% Outlets
tY
Sh
N
or
th
al
s
ha
m
ha
m
ro
m
er
nh
am
er
in
g
W
C
nn
am
Ly
D
er
eh
Fa
ke
Ea
st
gs
th
or
w
ic
h
ar
m
ou
K
in
G
N
Goad Floorspace sq.m
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
Figure 3.1 - Total Floorspace
200,000
175,000
150,000
125,000
100,000
50,000
75,000
25,000
0
Source: Experian GOAD
Figure 3.2 - Convenience Floorspace
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Source: Experian GOAD
Figure 3.3 - Bars, Wine Bars and Public Houses
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Source: Experian Goad
18
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
Leisure – A multi-screen cinema and bowling alley anchor the town’s leisure offer.
The racecourse and museum are also popular attractions, although they are situated
outside of the town centre. Figure 3.4 shows the distribution of cinemas within the
district.
•
Vacancy Levels – At the time of DTZ’s audit some 6% of total outlets were vacant,
which is below the national average of 8%. This compares with a vacancy level of 8%
in 1995. Most of the vacant outlets are concentrated outside of the prime retail pitch
although there are two larger vacant premises at 1-3 Old Post Office Street and opposite
the Salvation Army building on Oak Street.
•
Retailer Requirements – Fakenham currently has eleven retailers with potential
requirements for space and has the highest number of requirements of any centre within
the District.
•
Size Of Units – Although the majority of units in Fakenham are relatively small, it does
have a higher proportion of larger outlets than any other centre in the District. The
largest town centre outlets are currently occupied by Budgens, Aldiss, Woolworths and
the cinema.
•
Out-of-centre Retail – Apart from the Morrisons and Co-Op stores, Focus also has an
out-of-centre DIY store in Fakenham. This is the only out-of-centre ‘bulky goods’
operator currently trading in the District, apart from the three operators in the North
Norfolk Retail Park in Cromer.
(ii) Centre Survey
3.05
Volume 3 provides a more detailed commentary of the results of the centre surveys. The
following sets out some of the headline findings for Fakenham:
•
Catchment Area – Fakenham attracted 44% of respondents to the centre survey from
within a ten minute drive time area and 25% from within a ten to twenty minute drive
time. The remaining 39% travelled longer distances to the centre on the day of the
interviews. These were mainly tourists and day-visitors from across the UK and abroad.
•
Reasons to Visit – Respondents identified the banks and financial services as the most
popular reason for their trip to the centre.
•
Eating and Drinking – The majority of shoppers did not intend to stop to eat or drink at
the time of the survey. Of those who were stopping, over half were going to cafés
within the town centre.
•
Mode of Travel – The majority of respondents (68%) travel to Fakenham by car. A
further 23% of respondents walk to the centre. Although this is slightly lower than the
average for all the North Norfolk centres of 26%, it nevertheless indicates that
Fakenham has a strong local resident catchment population.
•
Frequency of Visits – It attracts more frequent trips than the other centres in North
Norfolk. Some 75% visit once a week or more often, compared with the ‘all-centre’
average of 56%. This reflects its important role as a convenience and service
destination serving its local resident catchment population.
19
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
Attractions – People mainly visit the town because it is close to where they live or
work. The general town centre environment and choice of places to eat and drink are
also rated relatively highly compared with other attractions.
•
Weaknesses – The majority of respondents could not identify any particular weaknesses
within the town, although parking issues and specifically the difficulty of finding a
parking space were highlighted.
•
Improvements – The main responses identified the need for a swimming pool/leisure
centre, more parking and more/better clothes and fashion stores. The need for a leisure
centre has been met following the opening of the edge of town Fakenham Sports and
Fitness Centre, which was opened in September 2004.
•
Other Centres – Approximately one-quarter of respondents indicated that they were
“loyal” to Fakenham and do not shop in any other centres in the District, or beyond.
However, a significant proportion (43%) regularly travel to the larger centres of
Norwich and Kings Lynn for their main comparison goods shop.
(iii) Household Survey
3.06
Volume 3 provides a more detailed commentary on the key findings of the household
telephone interview survey. The following sets out the headline findings for Fakenham:
•
Food Shopping – Safeway (Morrisons) is the third most popular store within the
District, attracting nearly 10% of respondents. The store also draws 7% of respondents
living outside the ‘core’ or District area.
•
Fashion Shopping – Fakenham only attracts 4% of respondents across all survey zones.
This rises to nearly one-quarter of respondents within its local zone.
•
Christmas and Special Occasion Shopping – The town’s market share drops by
almost half at Christmas and for special occasion shopping (when compared to year
round fashion shopping trips).
•
Out-of Town Shopping – The Focus is the most popular destination for DIY goods
shopping in the District, attracting 7% of shopping trips. The Aldiss stores also attract a
relatively high proportion of furniture-related shopping trips (9%).
•
Improvements – Respondents identified the need for more/larger clothing and fashion
shops, as well as more parking provision.
•
Leisure – Fakenham is one of the most popular towns within the District for evenings
out to eat/drink. It is also a popular destination for cinema-goers across the District.
20
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
Figure 3.4: Cinema provision in North Norfolk
Figure 3.5: Fakenham catchment area
2. North Walsham
3.07
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.
3.08
The designation of the whole of the town centre as a Conservation Area, along with its
large number of listed buildings, has limited the potential to modernise and increase its
retail offer over recent years. As a result, much of the new development and investment
has occurred on the edge of the town centre - including the J.Sainsbury to the north-east
(off Bacton Road) and the Lidl and Roys Variety Store to the south (off Yarmouth Road).
3.09
The headline results of the healthcheck and surveys are described below (and in more detail
in Appendix 1):
21
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
(i) Healthcheck
•
Floorspace – The town has a similar quantum of floorspace as Cromer (over 20,000
sq.m) and is ranked behind Fakenham.
•
Multiple Offer – Figure 3.6 shows that the town has a relatively good multiple
representation compared to the rest of the District. Key anchor stores include Boots and
Woolworths on Market Place, along with J.Sainsbury, Roys and Lidl.
•
Retail Rankings – Like Fakenham, North Walsham has also fallen over 300 places in
the national centre rankings since 1999 and is currently placed 1,120nd.
•
Convenience Offer – North Walsham has an above average representation of outlets
(10%), benchmarked against the national average of 7%. The town is a 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 – Figure 3.7 shows that the centre has an under-provision of nonfood 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 are the two main anchor
stores in the town and both are targeted at the value end of the market.
•
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. Figure 3.8 shows the provision of health and fitness centres
within the district.
•
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.
22
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
Figure 3.6: Multiple offer (% of outlets)
30
25
% Outlets
20
15
10
5
W
el
ls
ol
t
H
al
ha
m
St
ha
m
in
g
Sh
er
ro
m
er
C
to
n
H
ov
e
m
sh
a
W
al
N
or
t
h
Fa
k
en
ha
m
0
Source: Experian Goad / DTZ
W
el
ls
N
or
w
K
i
c
in
gs h
G
t Y Ly n
n
ar
m
ou
th
St
Sh alh
er am
in
gh
am
C
ro
Fa m e
r
Ea ken
ha
st
m
D
N
or ere
ha
th
m
W
al
sh
am
H
ov
et
on
G
B
N
or Av
.
fo
lk
A
v.
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
H
ol
t
% Outlets
Figure 3.7: Comparison Outlets
Source: Experian Goad
Figure 3.8: Health and Fitness provision in North Norfolk
23
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
Retailer Requirements – There are 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 Sainsburys, Lidl and
Roys are all based in larger units, but they are located away from the Market Place.
(ii) Centre Survey
•
Catchment Area – 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.
Figure 3.9: North Walsham catchment area
•
Reasons for Visit – Work and business trips are the main reasons why people visit the
town centre.
•
Eating and Drinking – The majority of shoppers do not combine their trips with a visit
to a café, restaurant or bar. This is partly due to the fact that the centre has a more
limited role as a tourist/visitor destination, along with the fact that it has a limited
provision of cafés and restaurants.
•
Mode of Travel – North Walsham is attracting a good mix of visitors travelling by
different modes. Although the majority of respondents (56%) travel to the centre by car,
over 38% also walk to the centre.
•
Frequency of Visits –North Walsham attracts more frequent trips than any of the other
centres in North Norfolk. Over 72% of people indicated that they visit the centre once a
week or more, compared with the all centre average of 56%.
•
Attractions – People mainly visit 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.
24
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
Weaknesses – The majority of respondents could not identify any particular weaknesses
in the town’s offer, although parking related issues, such as “hard to find parking”, were
the most frequently mentioned by 18%.
•
Improvements – The main improvements included the need for a cinema (16% of
respondents), and more/better clothing and fashion stores (33%).
•
Other Centres – Although 20% stated that they do not visit any other centres for their
shopping needs, nearly half do regularly shop in Norwich for comparison goods.
(iv) Household Survey
•
Food Shopping – Sainsbury’s is the most popular foodstore. It draws some 11% of
respondents from across the whole District and over 22% from within Zone 3 (its core
zone).
•
Fashion Shopping – Although a relatively popular fashion shopping destination
compared to the other centres in North Norfolk, its overall market shares are still
relatively low. For example, it draws just 7% of respondents within its core area (Zone
3) for non-food shopping. This is partly explained by the draw of Norwich and also by
the relatively limited choice of shops and stores in the town centre.
•
Christmas and Special Occasion Shopping – Only 5% of respondents visited the
centre for Christmas and special occasion shopping, compared with the 7% who shop in
the centre at other times.
•
Improvements – The main improvements identified included larger stores (12%), more
clothing and fashion shops (6%) and better quality/designer stores (7%).
•
Leisure – The survey indicates that North Walsham is one of the most popular evening
destinations in the District, despite its relative under-provision of restaurants. DTZ
understand that the town is a popular evening destination because of its choice of pubs.
3. Cromer
3.10
Cromer is identified as one of the ‘principal centres’ in the District and is also the largest of
the coastal tourist destinations. It functions as an important shopping and service
destination for its local residents, as well as an important tourist/visitor centre. Maintaining
and strengthening its important day-to-day offer, alongside its seasonal tourist and visitor
attractions is fundamental to the centre’s overall vitality and viability.
3.11
As with North Walsham and other centres in North Norfolk, the town centre is almost
wholly within a Conservation Area and contains a number of attractive (and listed) historic
buildings. The ‘heart’ of the town is St Peter and St Paul’s Church, around which the main
retail offer is focussed.
3.12
The headline results of the healthchecks and surveys are set out below:
(i) Healthcheck
•
Floorspace – With over 20,000 sq.m total floorspace the town is the joint second largest
centre in the district with North Walsham.
•
Multiple Outlets – There are relatively few multiples in the town centre, aside from
services providers such as banks and building societies. The main multiple anchors in
the centre are Mackays, Budgens, Boots and Woolworths.
25
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
Centre Rankings – The centre is placed 773rd in the national rankings and is the highest
ranked of all the North Norfolk Centres (Figure 3.10). It has also only experienced a
modest decline in its status over the last five years.
•
Convenience Offer – The town has an above average provision of outlets (9%),
benchmarked against the national average (7%). Closer analysis indicates a relative
under-representation of frozen foods stores, butchers and delicatessens. The main food
superstore is Safeway (Morrisons), although this is located out-of-centre.
•
Comparison Offer – The provision of comparison outlets (32% of total outlets) broadly
matches the national average (33%). There is an under-representation of clothing stores;
catalogue showrooms; and larger variety stores. There is, however, an over-provision of
second-hand and gift stores, many of which cater for the tourist and visitor trade.
•
Service Offer – Its representation of service businesses is over 36%, benchmarked
against the national average of 35%.
•
Cafés, restaurants and bars – The offer (13%) is slightly above the national average
(12%). There is an under-provision of bars, wine bars, nightclubs and restaurants.
There are also no major multiple operators in the town.
•
Leisure – The town does benefit from a good provision of other leisure uses. These
include the four-screen Regal cinema (Hans Place), the Pier (including the Pavilion
Theatre) and a variety of amusement arcades.
•
Department and Variety Stores – There is a marked under-provision of larger stores.
Woolworth’s Local is the only variety store in the town.
•
Vacancy Levels – Vacancies (9% of total outlets) are slightly above the national
average (8%) and below the levels recorded in 1995 (11%). These vacant outlets are
largely concentrated in the secondary shopping streets. However, Cromer and other
coastal resorts are susceptible to seasonal changes in vacancy rates, as many of the
shops targeted at tourists and visitors tend to close during the off-peak season.
Nevertheless, there are no signs that there are a significant concentration of long-term
vacant units in the town centre.
•
Retailer Requirements – There are six businesses that have identified requirements for
the town.
•
Size Of Units – The majority of outlets in the town are small to medium sized, and there
is a poor supply of modern larger units to meet the demand from multiple operators. If
market demand did increase from businesses for representation in Cromer (and indeed
other centres in North Norfolk), it would be difficult to accommodate within the existing
fabric of the town centre due to the constraints of Conservation Areas and Listed
Buildings.
•
Out-of-Centre Retail – North Norfolk Retail Park is anchored by MFI, Argos and a
carpet operator.
26
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
Figure 3.10: Centre Rankings
Norwich
Kings Lynn
Gt Yarmouth
East Dereham
Cromer
Fakenham
North Walsham
Sheringham
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
2004 MHE Rank
Source: Experian Goad / DTZ
Figure 3.11: Leisure offer (% of outlets that are cinemas, clubs, etc.)
6
% Outlets
5
4
3
2
1
t
H
ol
m
lh
a
St
a
on
H
ov
et
gh
am
Sh
er
in
ha
m
W
al
s
Fa
ke
Source: Experian Goad / DTZ
N
nh
am
el
ls
W
C
ro
m
er
0
Figure 3.12: Cromer’s catchment area
27
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
(ii) Centre Survey
•
Catchment Area – Although Cromer draws a high proportion of its visitors from
within its 10 minute catchment (42%), it also attracts over 46% from outside the and 20
minute catchment. This highlights the town’s status as a holiday destination and Figure
3.12 shows the origins of visitors from across the UK.
•
Reasons to Visit – A high proportion (26%) of respondents indicated that the main
reason for their visiting the centre is because it is close to where they live. The town is
also popular with tourists/visitors, with 22% indicating that this was the main purpose of
their trip.
•
Eating and Drinking – Nearly half of all respondents intended to stop for something to
eat or drink as part of their trip. Most of these had visited, or intended to visit, the
town’s relatively good choice of cafés.
•
Mode of Travel – The majority of respondents (63%) travelled to Cromer by car, which
compares with the all centre average of 65%. Over 29% of respondents walk to the
centre, which reflects its important role serving local residents.
•
Frequency of Visits – Cromer attracts more frequent trips than the other North Norfolk
centres. The survey indicates that over 48% visit the centre once a week or more,
benchmarked against the all centre average of 56%.
•
Attractions – Its convenience, ‘nice shopping environment’ and the proximity of the
beach are the most popular attractions.
•
Weaknesses – The majority of respondents perceived the volume of traffic in the centre
(28%) and a lack of parking places (11%) as being the main weaknesses, followed by a
poor choice of stores (10%). These responses reflect the fact that the surveys were
conducted during the holiday season, when issues concerning congestion and parking
would be at their peak.
•
Improvements – A high proportion of respondents identified the need for a swimming
pool (16%), more parking (13%) and more/better clothing and fashion stores (23%).
•
Other Centres – Norwich and Sheringham are the two main ‘other’ centres visited
regularly by respondents in Cromer.
(iii) Household Survey
•
Food Shopping – Safeway (Morrisons) is the most popular foodstore. It attracts over
18% of respondents from across the whole district and a significant 46% within its core
survey area (Zone 2).
•
Fashion Shopping – The town has a relatively limited market share within the District,
mainly due to its under-provision of (quality) clothing and fashion retailers.
•
Christmas and Special Occasion Shopping – Cromer’s market share for comparison
goods shopping falls from 16% to 8% when people carry out their larger Christmas and
special occasion purchases. In contrast the market shares of larger neighbouring centres
increase significantly. For example, Norwich’s market share increases from 51% to
65%.
•
Improvements – Respondents identified the need for more parking, more
clothing/fashion shops and larger stores.
28
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
Leisure – The town is relatively popular for evenings out, attracting 9% of respondents
from within the District, rising to 20% in Zone 2. Nevertheless, DTZ consider that there
is still potential to improve the overall numbers and quality of the restaurants and pubs
in the town centre.
4. Holt
The 1998 Local Plan identifies Holt as a ‘principal centre’ in the District. It is
characterised by its specialist and niche retail offer catering for its tourist and visitor
market, alongside its more traditional offer serving the day-to-day needs of its local
resident population. The headline results of the healthchecks and surveys are briefly
described below:
(i) Healthcheck
•
Floorspace – The centre has not been audited by Experian GOAD, which reflects the
modest scale of its retail, service and leisure offer. As Figure 3.13 shows, Holt is ranked
fifth in the District in terms of the number of its service and retail outlets.
Figure 3.13: Number of Outlets
250
200
No of Outlets
150
100
50
n
ov
et
o
H
ha
m
St
al
W
el
ls
ol
t
H
m
in
gh
a
Sh
er
ha
m
Fa
ke
n
sh
am
N
W
al
ro
m
er
0
C
3.13
Source Experian GOAD / DTZ
•
Multiple Outlets – The only multiple outlets within the town are the Budgens
supermarket located on the edge of the town centre, although this has a good pedestrian
link to Market Place. There are also a number of major banks, building societies and
estate agents.
•
Retail Rankings – Although Holt does not appear in the retail rankings, it is
nevertheless one of the District’s stronger centres, due to its role as a specialist centre
catering primarily for tourists and visitors.
•
Convenience Offer – The food offer is anchored by the Budgens supermarket. There
are also a large number of traditional convenience stores (such as butchers, grocers,
fishmongers etc.). The town also benefits from the delicatessen and general food
department of the Bakers and Larners of Holt variety store, which provides a wide
variety of specialist foods. There is also a small Spar in the Market Place.
•
Comparison Offer – The town has a large number of comparison outlets, which are
predominantly independently-owned, quality stores selling higher order goods, such as
29
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
antiques, crafts, gifts, high fashion and homeware. It is this good choice of shops and
stores that makes the town a popular destination for visitors and tourists.
•
Service Provision – All the major banks and building societies are present within the
town centre. The good selection of services mean that the needs of the local population
are adequately provided for.
•
Cafés, restaurants and bars – DTZ’s research has indicated that the town has an
under-provision of eating and drinking establishments, particularly in the restaurant
sector. There are several small cafés within the town centre, as well as a number of
public houses, which primarily serve the need of shoppers during the day. There is no
significant presence of restaurants or bars providing somewhere to go in the evening for
locals, tourists and visitors.
Figure 3.14: Number of Outlets
12
% Outlets
10
8
6
4
2
K
H
o
in
gs lt
Ly
N
nn
W
al
sh
am
H
ov
et
on
G
B
N
A
or
v
fo
lk
A
v.
Sh We
ll
er
in s
gh
am
C
ro
m
er
N
or
w
ic
Fa
ke h
nh
G
tY
am
ar
m
o
ut
E
h
D
er
eh
am
St
al
ha
m
0
Source: Experian Goad
•
Leisure – The town has no other leisure provision, in terms of sports and commercial
leisure venues.
•
Department and Variety Stores – Bakers and Larners of Holt is a single variety store
fronting the Market Place. It has various interconnecting stores configured around the
Market Place, and sells a variety of foods and homewares amongst other items.
•
Vacancies – At the time of DTZ’s audit there were no vacant outlets in the town centre.
•
Size Of Units – The majority of outlets in the town are small to medium sized. These
units suit the needs of the types of retailers currently located within the town.
(ii) Centre Survey
•
Catchment Area – Holt’s role as an important tourist and visitor destination is reflected
by the fact that nearly 65% of respondents to the centre survey lived outside the 20
minute catchment area. Figure 3.15 illustrates the relatively wide draw of the small,
specialist centre.
30
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
Reasons to Visit – Some 23% of respondents to the centre survey were tourists and a
further 11% were just visiting the centre.
Figure 3.15: Holt’s catchment area
•
Eating and Drinking – The centre is one of the more popular towns in the District to
stop to eat or drink. Over half of respondents indicated that they had (or would) visit a
café or pub as part of their trip. This would appear to confirm the potential to provide
more quality places to eat and drink in the centre.
•
Mode of Travel – Over 85% of respondents travelled to Holt by car, compared to the all
centre average of 65%. This confirms that the centre is attracting a higher proportion of
car-borne trips, particularly by tourists and visitors.
•
Frequency of Visits – Over 27% of people visit the centre once a week or more,
compared with the all centre average of 56%. Although Holt caters for its local
residents, its strong draw of visitors and tourists is reflected by the fact that over 16% of
respondents visit once a month, whilst over 25% visit once or twice a year.
•
Attractions – The choice of specialist shops and the nice shopping environment were
named as the main attractions by 30% and 26% of respondents respectively.
•
Weaknesses – The lack of places to park within the centre is the key weakness of the
town. Over 67% of respondents highlighted this within the survey, which reflects the
fact that the surveys were conducted during the holiday season when demand for
parking is at its highest.
•
Improvements – More parking and better parking facilities were identified by nearly
55% of respondents. A further 10% of respondents suggested cheaper parking.
•
Other Centres – Nearly 20% of respondents stated that they do not regularly visit any
other centre for their non-food shopping needs. A proportion of respondents are visiting
the nearby towns of Sheringham (7%) and Fakenham (7%), which both have different
complementary retail offers to Holt. Some 20% of respondents also visit Norwich, as it
is the main comparison goods shopping destination in the region.
31
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
(iii) Household Survey
•
Food Shopping – Budgens attracts over 8% of respondents within Holt’s core zone (i.e.
Zone 2). However, the majority of people in this zone shop in the larger Morrisons store
in Cromer.
•
Fashion Shopping – The town is the most popular destination for clothing and footwear
in the District. It attracts 8% of shopping trips from across the District, rising to 18%
from within its core zone. This reflects the relative quality of its offer and the fact that it
provides an offer that is complementary to the other North Norfolk centres.
•
Christmas and Special Occasion Shopping – Although the town is a less popular
destination for special occasion items, it remains the most popular shopping destination
within the District, drawing over 12% of respondents from within its core zone.
•
Improvements – As with the results of the centre survey, most respondents (13%)
identified the need for more parking spaces.
•
Leisure – Although relatively popular in the local area, Holt is a less attractive leisure
destination throughout the rest of the District for the purposes of evenings out to eat /
drink. This is due to the lack of quality restaurants and bars.
5. Sheringham
3.14
The town is the second largest of the coastal tourist destinations. Its retail and service offer
balances the need to cater for the day-to-day needs of its local resident population,
alongside the demands of its seasonal tourist and visitor population. The centre’s retail
offer stretches in a linear route along Station Road to the south, up the High Street to the
Promenade in the north. Most of the town’s tourist and visitor orientated shops and stores
are located at the northern end of the High Street. Although most of the centre is within a
Conservation Area, DTZ understand that there are no Listed Buildings.
3.15
The headline results of the healthchecks and surveys are briefly described below:
(i) Healthcheck
•
Floorspace – The town is the smallest of those surveyed by Experian GOAD. With just
over 16,000 sq.m of total floorspace it is smaller than the principal centres of Fakenham,
North Walsham and Cromer.
•
Multiple Outlets – The major retail multiples in the centre include Woolworths,
Budgens and Stead and Simpson, along with a number of banks.
•
Retail Rankings – Sheringham is placed 1,348th in the retail rankings (out of 1,670
centres). It has fallen over 450 places since 1999, which reflects the lack of major new
investment and development in the centre over recent years relative to other similarsized centres in the national rankings.
•
Convenience Offer – There is a good overall provision of smaller convenience-based
stores, with 14% of total outlets in this sector compared to the national average of 7%.
There is, however, an under-provision of frozen-food stores and health food stores.
Apart from the small Budgens and Co-Op foodstores on Church Street, the town
currently lacks a large foodstore to anchor its convenience goods offer and help ‘claw
back’ a proportion of the shoppers and spend currently leaking to larger stores in
neighbouring centres, particularly Cromer. There are currently proposals for the
development of an edge-of-centre Tesco store on the site of the current community
32
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
centre and fire station and a new Budgens convenience store (750 sq.m.net sales area)
on part of the Station Car Park.
Figure 3.16: Multiple Outlets
45
40
% Outlets
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
ha
m
rin
g
Sh
e
Cr
om
er
am
W
al
sh
m
No
rt
h
De
re
ha
en
ha
m
Ea
st
tY
G
Fa
k
ar
m
ou
th
Ly
nn
s
in
g
K
N
or
w
ic
h
0
Source Experian Goad
•
Comparison Offer – Some 34% of outlets (and 36% of floorspace) are non-food. The
outlets are predominantly independently-run and, despite the presence of a small number
of quality outlets, the majority are lower quality value-orientated outlets. DTZ has
identified an under-provision in the catalogue store, clothing, music, and furniture
sectors.
•
Service Offer – Service businesses currently represent 35% of total outlets, which
broadly matches the national average. The majority of the major banks and building
societies are represented in the town.
•
Vacancies – There are currently eight vacant outlets in the town centre, equivalent to a
vacancy rate of 5%. This is below the national average and also the vacancy rate
recorded in 1995 of 8% (11 units). As with the other coastal towns in the District, this
vacancy rate will obviously fluctuate during the year, peaking in the non-holiday
periods.
Figure 3.17: Vacancies (% outlets)
12
10
% Outlets
8
6
4
2
G
W
el
ls
H
ol
ov t
et
on
G
B
N
o r Av
.
fo
lk
A
v.
H
tY
ar
m
ou
K
in
t
gs h
Ly
nn
Cr
om
er
N
N
or
o
t h rw
W ich
al
sh
am
St
al
Fa ham
Ea ken
h
st
D am
er
Sh eha
m
er
in
gh
am
0
33
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
Cafés, restaurants and bars – The town has an under-provision of quality eating and
drinking establishments. There are several small cafés within the town centre, as well
as a number of public houses and fast-food outlets. These primarily cater for daytime
trips and not those going out to eat or drink in the evenings.
(ii) Centre Survey
•
Catchment Area – According to the survey, Sheringham draws approximately 40% of
shoppers from its 10 minute catchment, but a higher proportion (58%) live outside the
20 minutes catchment (see Figure 3.18). This reflects the centre’s important role as a
tourist and visitor destination.
•
Reasons to Visit – The most popular reason for visiting Sheringham is for tourism / day
trips (31% of respondents), which is higher than the ‘all-centre’ average of 20%. The
town is also popular for food and non-food shopping.
•
Eating and Drinking – Over 55% of respondents stated that they did not intend to stop
for something to eat or drink in the centre as part of their trip. Those who were eating or
drinking in the town centre generally visited its cafés and fast food outlets. This reflects
the town’s relatively poor choice of restaurants.
•
Mode of Travel – Nearly 67% of respondents travel to Sheringham by car, compared
with the all-centre average of 65%. A further 25% walk to the town, reflecting its
appeal to the local population.
•
Frequency of Visits – Almost 45% of people visit the centre once a week or more,
compared to the all-centre average of over 56%. Some 30% of respondents also visit
Sheringham once or twice a year, compared with the all-centre average of 18%. This
reflects the town’s wider draw of tourists and visitors.
Figure 3.18: Sheringham’s catchment area
34
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
Attractions – Respondents identified Sheringham’s “quality shops” as a major
attraction. This is surprising given that the healthcheck identified that the majority of
shops in the town sell mid-range and value goods. DTZ consider that this response
could reflect the centre’s lower socio-economic customer profile. Other popular reasons
for visiting are the attractive environment and beach.
•
Weaknesses – Nearly one-quarter of respondents did not identify any weaknesses. Of
the remainder, parking problems and traffic congestion were identified as the biggest
issues.
•
Improvements – Some 17% of respondents identified the need for a new supermarket.
Other improvements identified are more clothes / fashion stores (10%), and more
parking provision (9%).
•
Other Centres – Norwich with its superior retail offer, is the most popular other centre
to visit, attracting 21% of respondents interviewed in Sheringham. Cromer is also a
popular centre, drawing 16% of respondents.
(iii) Household Survey
•
Food Shopping – The lack of major foodstores in Sheringham is confirmed by the
household survey results. Less than 1% of respondents within its core survey zone
(zone 2) shop in Sheringham’s stores for convenience goods. There is a significant
‘leakage’ of shoppers and spend to larger foodstores in neighbouring centres,
particularly Cromer.
•
Fashion Shopping – The town only draws people from the immediate area for fashion
shopping. Within its core zone, 6% of respondents stated that they regularly shop in
Sheringham, whereas less than 1% of respondents are drawn from other zones.
•
Christmas and Special Occasion Shopping – The proportion of people shopping in the
town falls by half for special occasion purchases when compared to year round shopping
patterns. This reflects the results of the healthcheck, which highlights the poor choice of
stores and goods in the town.
•
Improvements – More parking provision and more clothing and fashion stores were
identified as improvements to Sheringham by the highest proportion of respondents
(13% and 12 % respectively).
•
Leisure – Sheringham attracts over 12% of respondents from its core zone for evenings
out to eat or drink. However, the town does not draw people from across the District,
which indicates the lack of quality leisure provision.
6. Stalham
3.16
Stalham is one of the District’s smaller centres, located to the south east of North Walsham.
Its retail offer primarily serves the everyday convenience and service business needs of its
local population. The centre’s food offer has recently been strengthened by the opening of
a new Tesco foodstore on the edge of the town. Although this new store has met with some
opposition from the local community and businesses, it has helped to ‘claw back’ some of
the ‘bulk’ food shopping trips to other larger neighbouring centres and stores.
3.17
The key results of the healthchecks and surveys are as follows:
35
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
(i) Healthcheck
•
Floorspace – The town is one of the smallest centres within the District and this is
reflected by the fact that it is not covered by Experian GOAD. DTZ’s audit has
identified some 45 units in the town centre.
•
Multiple Outlets – The main multiple anchoring the centre’s offer is the Tesco (edge of
centre) foodstore, following the closure of the Somerfield store in 2004.
•
Convenience Provision – The town has a good convenience provision, being anchored
by the new Tesco store. Local Farmers markets are also popular within the town and
run several times a month attracting people from outside the town.
•
Comparison Provision – The town only has a small comparison goods offer in terms of
floorspace, which generally serves the day-to-day needs of the local population. DTZ
estimate that some 35% of total outlets are comparison goods based, which is slightly
above the national average of over 33%. Outlets within the centre include antiques
stores, florists, shoe shops and a pet store.
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
H
ol
t
W
el
ls
N
or
w
K
i
c
in
gs h
G
t Y Lyn
n
ar
m
ou
th
St
Sh alh
er am
in
gh
am
C
ro
Fa me
r
Ea ken
ha
st
m
D
N
or ere
ha
th
m
W
al
sh
am
H
ov
et
on
G
B
N
or Av
.
fo
lk
A
v.
% Outlets
Figure 3.19 Comparison outlets
Source: Experian Goad
•
Service Provision – Service outlets account for over 40% of total outlets in the town
and the main multiples present are Barclays and Natwest banks.
•
Vacancies – DTZ audited four vacant units in the town centre in September 2004,
which is equivalent to a vacancy level of 8%. This compares to the two vacant units
identified in 1995.
•
Cafés, restaurants and bars – There are a small number of cafes, take-aways and pubs
within the town, serving the local population and the more modest tourist and visitors to
the centre.
•
Leisure – The town has only one commercial leisure provision (The Stalham Sports
Centre) based at the High School. However it is well connected to the Norfolk Broads
and there are two small museums in and near the town.
36
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
(ii) Centre Survey
•
Catchment Area – Stalham primarily attracts shoppers from its local area (see Figure
3.20). The survey results indicate that 71% of shoppers live within the 10 minute
catchment and 11% live within the 20 minute catchment. Therefore the centre only
attracts a small proportion (c.18%) of tourists and visitors.
Figure 3.20: Stalham’s catchment area
•
Reasons to Visit – The main reason for visiting the town is to undertake top-up food
shopping (25% of respondents). At the time of the survey less than 2% of people were
visiting the centre for their main-food shopping only. It is important to note, however,
that no interviews were conducted at the new Tesco store, which is an important main
‘bulk’ food shopping destination. Therefore, DTZ consider that the low proportion of
people indicating that the main reason for their visit was to carry out their main-food
shop could indicate the relatively poor linkages between the Tesco store and the rest of
the town centre. In other words, only a small proportion of those interviewed in the
town centre had been, or were visiting, the Tesco store as part of their trip.
•
Eating and Drinking – The majority of respondents (70%) stated that they did not
intend to stop for something to eat or drink as part of their trip to the centre. This
reflects the fact that there is an under-provision of cafés and restaurants in Stalham.
•
Mode of Travel – Nearly 40% of respondents walk to Stalham, compared with the allcentre average of 26%. This confirms that the town primarily serves its local resident
population.
•
Frequency of Visits – Over 84% of respondents stated that they visit the town once a
week or more, benchmarked against the all-centre average of 56%. This again confirms
the town’s role as a frequent destination for convenience shopping and service-based
trips.
37
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
Attractions – Proximity to home and/or place of work and the environment are the two
main attractions identified by respondents.
•
Weaknesses – Tesco was identified by 18% of respondents as a “weakness” and was
not a popular addition to the town. Other weaknesses identified included the fact that a
number of small stores had closed down over recent years, which some respondents
linked directly to the opening of the new Tesco store.
•
Improvements – Over one-third of respondents (34%) identified the need for a better
range and choice of stores, as well as more clothing and fashion stores. Opposition to
the Tesco store is illustrated by the fact that 9% of respondents stated that the store
should be closed down.
•
Other Centres – Norwich and Great Yarmouth are the main alternative shopping and
leisure attractions, drawing 31% and 16% of respondents respectively.
(iii) Household Survey
•
Food Shopping – Despite Tesco’s unpopularity with some local residents, it attracts
over 10% of respondents from within its core survey area (i.e. zone 3).
•
Fashion Shopping – The centre’s relatively poor fashion offer is reflected by the fact
that less than 5% of respondents shop in the town for clothing and footwear items.
•
Christmas and Special Occasion Shopping – Only 2% of people visit the town for
special occasion purchases. The majority of residents travel to larger towns with a
larger retail offer, such as Norwich (65%) and Great Yarmouth (18%).
•
Leisure – Stalham primarily attracts people from the immediate area for an evening out
to eat and/or drink. Some 11% of respondents from the core zone went to Stalham for
their last evening out and the majority of these people visited pubs in the town.
7. Wells Next The Sea
3.18
The town 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.
3.19
The headline results of the healthchecks and surveys are described below:
(i) Healthcheck
•
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 has the highest proportion of convenience stores in
the District (see Figure 3.21) and predominantly serves the day-to-day needs of its local
population and visitors. Over 20% of outlets within the town are convenience stores,
38
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
compared to the national average of 7%. The convenience offer includes independent
butchers and bakers, and the small Costcutter.
Figure 3.21: Convenience goods offer (% of total outlets)
20
18
16
% Outlets
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
m
ha
ke
n
Fa
C
ro
m
er
W
or
th
N
H
ol
t
al
sh
am
to
n
ov
e
H
rin
g
ha
m
m
Sh
e
St
al
ha
W
el
ls
0
Source Experian GOAD / DTZ
•
Comparison Provision – The town only has 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.
•
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.
(ii) Centre Survey
•
Catchment Area – Wells is an important holiday and visitor destination in North
Norfolk. The survey responses confirm 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.
39
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
Figure 3.22: Wells’s catchment area
•
Reasons to Visit – Over half of all respondents interviewed were day visitors or tourists
to the centre and North Norfolk.
•
Eating and Drinking – Despite only a basic provision of food outlets, some 69% of
people interviewed in Wells are more likely to stop to eat and/or drink than in any other
North Norfolk centre. This also indicates that dwell times in the centre are higher than
for the other North Norfolk centres.
•
Mode of Travel – Over 75% of respondents travel to Wells by car, compared to the ‘allcentre’ average of 65%. This reflects that the town is viewed as an attractive holiday
and day-trip destination, and also that there is very little provision / usage of public
transport.
•
Frequency of Visits – A high proportion of respondents (42%) visit the centre once or
twice a year. These are tourists and day-visitors to the centre and North Norfolk.
•
Attractions – The main attractions identified by respondents include the nice shopping
environment (24%) and the Quay (21%).
•
Weaknesses – The main weakness perceived by 24% of respondents is the lack of
parking availability within the town centre. This, as with many of the other centres, is
likely to be a seasonal issue.
•
Improvements – Over 31% of respondents identified the need for more or better
parking facilities. A better restaurant offer, particularly quality restaurants, was also
identified by 4% of respondents.
•
Other Centres – Due to the very limited retail, service and leisure offer, many people
travel to other towns in North Norfolk – Fakenham (10%) – and outside North Norfolk Norwich (10%) and Kings Lynn (9%) - on a regular basis.
40
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
(iii) Household Survey
•
Food Shopping – The convenience and food offer in Wells primarily draws people
from the immediate surrounding area. Stores within the town attract over 5% of
respondents from within its core survey zone (i.e. Zone 1).
•
Fashion Shopping – Only 1% of respondents shop in the town for fashion items, which
reflects the limited offer in Wells.
•
Christmas and Special Occasion Shopping – Unlike other centres in North Norfolk,
Wells attracts a slightly higher proportion of respondents for Christmas and special
occasion shopping (2%), albeit from a very low base. This probably reflects the centre’s
role as a tourist and visitor destination.
•
Leisure – Wells achieves a modest market share as an evening destination, drawing
over 6% of respondents from its core survey zone.
8. Hoveton
3.20
The Local Plan identifies the town as a ‘unique centre’. It is an important gateway to the
Norfolk Broads and, for a village of its size, it has a large retail offer dominated by stores
operated by Roys (Wroxham) Limited. It essentially provides an out-of-centre offer, within
a town centre location, drawing shoppers and trade from a wider area than would normally
be expected.
3.21
The headline results of the healthchecks and surveys are as follows:
(i) Healthcheck
•
Floorspace – Although one of the smallest centres within the District, the town has
approximately 13,000 sq.m of floorspace.
•
Multiple Outlets – The main multiples are within the service sector. It is dominated by
a small number of large outlets operated by Roys, including a supermarket and
department store on two levels.
Figure 3.23: Convenience Outlets
18
16
% Outlets
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
W
e
St lls
Sh alh
er am
in
gh
H am
N
ov
or
th
e
W ton
Ea a
l
st sh
D am
er
eh
Cr a m
o
K
in me
gs
r
Ly
n
N
or n
Fa wic
ke h
nh
am
G
t Y Ho
lt
ar
m
ou
G th
N BA
or
fo v.
lk
A
v.
0
Source: Experian Goad
41
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
Convenience Offer – Figure 3.23 shows that the town has a good provision of
convenience stores. It serves the day-to-day needs of its local population and visitors,
comprising a mix of butchers, bakers and the large Roys supermarket.
•
Comparison Offer – Hoveton’s comparison goods offer is more typical of a larger
centre. The Roys outlets also include toys, fashion goods and a garden centre.
•
Service Provision – The service provision is relatively good. All the major banks are
represented and there is a reasonable provision of hairdressers, beauty salons and other
services.
•
Cafés, restaurants and bars – There are a number of pubs, hotels and take-away
outlets within the town. McDonalds has a franchise in the Roys foodstore and this is its
only outlet in the District. There are currently no other multiple fast-food outlets in the
District’s main centres.
•
Leisure – There is no major commercial leisure provision within the town. However,
the town is an important gateway to the Broads, and is well connected with the attractive
waterways. For example, the Bure Valley Railway, which links Hoveton with Aylsham,
is a major attraction.
(ii) Centre Survey
•
Catchment Area – Hoveton is popular with both the local population and tourists /
visitors (see Figure 3.22). Some 41% of respondents in the centre live within the 10
minute catchment and 47% live outside the 20 minute.
•
Reasons to Visit – Nearly 30% of respondents visited the centre as part of their wider
holiday or day-trip. A further 15% of respondents specifically visited the centre to
purchase either food or non-food items.
•
Eating and Drinking – Over half of all respondents stated that they had stopped (or
intended to stop) for something to eat and/or drink as part of their trip. The most
popular attractions are the fast-food outlets (18% respondents) and particularly
McDonalds.
•
Mode of Travel – Over 70% of respondents travel to Hoveton by car, compared to the
‘all-centre’ average of 65%. This reflects the town’s strong draw of car-borne tourists
and visitors. The results show that 10% of respondents travel by public transport (i.e.
train or bus), which is double the ‘all-centre’ average of 5%.
•
Frequency of Visits – The centre attracts a mix of frequent locally-based trips and more
infrequent tourist-based trips. The centre survey results confirm that over two-fifths
(41%) of respondents visit once a week or more, which is below the ‘all-centre’ average
of 56%. In contrast over 35% visit once or twice a year, compared to the ‘all-centre’
average of 18%.
•
Attractions – The main attractions are the high quality shops (42% respondents); nice
shopping environment (11% respondents); and the Broads (10% respondents).
42
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
Figure 3.24: Hoveton’s catchment area
•
Weaknesses – The main weakness perceived by the respondents is the high volume of
traffic in the centre. Parking is not perceived to be a major problem in Hoveton, even
during the holiday season, as the centre is served by extensive parking provision.
•
Improvements – Respondents within the centre stated that more leisure facilities, such
as a swimming pool (18% respondents) and a sports centre (7% respondents), would be
welcome additions that would greatly improve the town.
•
Other Centres – Norwich is the most popular other centre visited. It was mentioned by
32% of respondents.
(iii) Household Survey
•
Food Shopping – The Roys store does not achieve as high a market share from within
the core survey area (Zone 3) as the other multiple foodstores. The store attracts just 4%
of respondents for main food shopping within its core zone, compared with 22%
achieved by Sainsburys in North Walsham and 19% by Tesco in Norwich.
•
Fashion Shopping – The town achieves a limited 2% market share across the District,
rising to 4% from within its core survey area.
•
Christmas and Special Occasion Shopping – The town attracts less than 2% of
respondents from its core zone for this type of shopping.
•
Leisure – The pubs in the town centre, and on the waterfront, attract nearly 6% of
people to Hoveton for an evening out to eat and/or drink. Other leisure pursuits include
boating and cycling. The majority of people within the core zone travel to North
Walsham (22%) for an evening out, whilst 13% travel to Norwich.
43
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
Summary
3.22
The evidence from the healthchecks, centre and household surveys has confirmed that the
District’s main centres, to varying degrees, serve both the day-to-day convenience and
service needs of their local resident catchment populations, whilst also catering for the
needs of holiday-makers. The surveys have confirmed the wide draw of visitors to these
centres during the peak holiday season, and the different pressures and demands that they
place on the retail and leisure offer, and infrastructure (particularly parking), of these
centres. Although similar surveys have not been conducted in the off-peak season, DTZ
understand from the Council that some of the District’s centres (particularly Holt, Wells,
Cromer/Sheringham and Hoveton) do also benefit from year-round tourist and visitor
spend.
3.23
Although the healthcheck has identified ‘gaps’ in the retail, service and commercial leisure
offer in the District’s centres, it is clear that a viable and sustainable strategy for the future
will need to reinforce and grow the current strengths, roles and functions of each centre.
The capacity and opportunity for new investment and growth is considered in more detail
in the following sections.
44
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
4
Retail Futures: Capacity Assessment
4.01
This section summarises the draft findings of DTZ’s broad quantitative retail and leisure
capacity assessment. To meet the objectives of this study we have modelled the potential
residual spend and floorspace capacity for new convenience and comparison goods
retailing in the District up to 2016.
4.02
In the context of PPS6 ‘Planning for Town Centres’ (March 2005) we assume that all the
forecast residual growth in convenience and comparison goods spend (and therefore new
floorspace capacity) should be developed in town centres first. This is in accordance with
the sequential approach to site selection. Only if there are no suitable and viable sites
available in existing centres, should edge-of-centre locations be considered, followed then
by out-of-centre sites.
DTZ Re:Map Retail Capacity Assessment – Scenario Testing
4.03
DTZ has developed the Re:Map model specifically to forecast the potential capacity for
(and impact of) new retail and leisure floorspace. DTZ Re:Map is based on a conventional
manual step-by-step approach and is both transparent and robust, in accordance with policy
advice. Its main advantage over other approaches is that the sensitivity of the key inputs
and forecasts can be tested at all stages in the analysis.
4.04
The key inputs to the model are estimates of market share (i.e. the proportion of available
comparison and convenience goods spending in the defined study area that is currently
attracted to existing centres and stores) and trade draw (i.e. the proportion of turnover
derived by individual centres and stores from outside the defined catchment area). In this
case DTZ’s market share and trade draw assumptions are informed by the findings of the
household and centre surveys. These surveys provide a robust starting point for analysing
the broad pattern of convenience and comparison goods shopping and spending across the
study area and beyond. Nevertheless, adjustments to these market share and trade draw
levels are often necessary to provide reasonable and realistic turnover levels at the base
year.
4.05
The other key assumptions underpinning DTZ’s Re:Map model relate to trading conditions
at the base year and the potential growth in the ‘productivity’ (or turnover ‘efficiency’) of
existing businesses and floorspace over the forecast period. DTZ’s assumptions are briefly
described below:
•
‘Equilibrium’ – DTZ has necessarily assumed that all existing floorspace and retail
businesses are trading at ‘equilibrium’ at the base year. In other words, existing
centres and stores are assumed to be achieving average turnover to floorspace levels in
line with the national company and centre averages. DTZ consider that this is a robust
baseline assumption, as there is no published information on the changing turnover
performance of Britain’s cities and towns over time, or individual foodstores and
shops. Thus, we are unable to accurately identify whether businesses are ‘undertrading’ or ‘over-trading’ at the base year. In this context, DTZ therefore necessarily
assume that there is no residual (‘pent-up’) convenience or comparison goods
expenditure available to support new floorspace at the base year. Nevertheless, we do
recognise that some centres and stores in North Norfolk may be ‘over-trading’ (or
‘under-trading’). Therefore, based on the market shares derived from the household
survey, DTZ provide a high level view as to whether the District’s stores and centres
are in ‘equilibrium’ at 2004.
45
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
4.06
4.07
Turnover ‘efficiency’ growth – DTZ assume a proportion of the forecast growth in
average spend will be allocated to existing floorspace and businesses to allow for their
increased turnover ‘efficiency’. This is a standard approach used in retail planning
studies and is a function of available spending growing at faster rates than new
floorspace provision, and retailers’ ability to absorb real increases in their costs (e.g.
rents) by increasing their turnover to floorspace ratios. It therefore helps existing town
centres to maintain their vitality and viability in accordance with policy guidelines.
PPS6 also supports the use of a “…realistic assessment of forecast improvements in
productivity in the use of floorspace” (para. 2.34). However, it does not provide
specific guidance on what these ‘realistic’ annual growth rates should be for food and
non-food retailing. As a result, for comparison goods retailing DTZ has tested a range
of floorspace ‘efficiency’ growth rates of +1.5% and +2.5% per annum. For
convenience goods retailing, DTZ test an annual efficiency growth rate of +0.3% for
the higher convenience goods spend forecast of +0.9% per annum and +0.1% for the
lower average spend forecast of +0.3% per annum.
In order to test the sensitivity of the outputs of the Re:Map model to critical changes in the
key inputs (such as population, expenditure, market shares, trade draw and turnover
‘efficiency’ growth rates for existing businesses), DTZ has modelled the following
scenarios for convenience goods retailing:
•
Scenarios 1 and 1(a): ‘Baseline’ – Assume market shares remain constant over the
forecast period, from 2004 to 2016. It is based on the County Council’s ‘policy-led’
population projections for Norfolk District and an expenditure growth rate of +0.3%
per annum. The only difference between the two scenarios is that Scenario 1 assumes
a turnover productivity (or ‘efficiency’) growth rate of +0.1% per annum for existing
businesses and floorspace, in accordance with the advice set out in PPS6, whereas
Scenario 1(a) does not assume an ‘efficiency’ growth rate. This enables DTZ to test
the sensitivity of the overall capacity forecasts to changes in these key inputs.
•
Scenarios 2 and 2(a): ‘Higher Spend Growth’ – Also assume 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) we test the hypothetical impact of no ‘efficiency’
growth on the capacity forecasts.
•
Scenarios 3 and 3(a): ‘High Spend and Population Growth’ – This differs from
Scenarios 1 and 2 in that DTZ test higher population growth rates based on ONS 2003
projections, which are based on an extrapolation of past trends. As with Scenario 2,
DTZ assume a higher growth in average spend of +0.9% per annum and test the impact
on capacity forecasts with (Scenario 3) and without (Scenario 3a) an annual
‘efficiency’ growth rate of +0.3%.
For comparison goods retailing, DTZ has modelled the following scenarios:
•
Scenarios 1 and 1(a): ‘Baseline’ – assumes constant market shares over the forecast
period and an expenditure growth rate of +4.4% per annum. DTZ also assume an
‘efficiency’ growth rate for existing non-food businesses of +1.5% per annum in
Scenario 1, as we believe this is the minimum growth required to maintain their overall
vitality and viability in accordance with PPS6. We also test a higher annual
‘efficiency’ of +2.5% in Scenario 1(a) to test the impact on the capacity outputs.
46
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
4.08
•
Scenarios 2 and 2(a): ‘Higher Population Growth’ – assumes constant market shares
up to 2016 and a growth in spend of +4.4% per annum, but tests the higher ONS 2003
population projections. As for Scenario 1, we test annual ‘efficiency’ growth rates of
+1.5% (Scenario 2) and +2.5% (Scenario 2a).
•
Scenarios 3 and 3(a): ‘Regeneration and Development’ - This hypothetical scenario
assumes that quantitative and qualitative improvements to North Norfolk’s main
centres will help to ‘claw back’ an increasing proportion of the comparison goods
spend that is currently ‘leaking’ to other larger centres and stores outside of the ‘core’
(or District) area, specifically Norwich, Great Yarmouth and Kings Lynn. As for
Scenarios 1 and 2, we also test annual ‘efficiency’ growth rates of +1.5% (Scenario 3)
and +2.5% (Scenario 3a).
Table 4.1 below provides a summary of the key inputs used to forecast retail capacity for
each scenario.
Table 4.1
Comparison and convenience goods retail capacity assessments, 2004 – 2016
Scenario Testing
Annual
Spend
Growth
Population
Growth
2004 - 2016
Annual
‘Efficiency’
Growth
Scenario 1 / 1(a):
0.3%
4.2%
0.1% / 0%
-
Scenario 2 / 2(a):
0.9%
4.2%
0.3% / 0%
-
Scenario 3 / 3(a):
0.9%
10.5%
0.3% / 0%
-
Scenario 1 / 1(a):
4.4%
4.2%
1.5% / 2.5%
-
Scenario 2 / 2(a):
4.4%
10.5%
1.5% / 2.5%
-
Scenario 3 / 3(a):
4.4%
4.2%
1.5% / 2.5%
Constant
Market Shares
‘Claw Back’
CONVENIENCE GOODS:
COMPARISON GOODS:
Notes:
X
5%
(1)
The total population growth of +4.2% results from the County Council’s ‘Policy-based’
forecasts.
(2)
The total population growth of +10.5% results from the ONS projections.
4.09
Please note that all monetary estimates and forecasts are expressed in constant 2001 prices
and do not, therefore, include inflation.
4.10
The remainder of this section briefly describes the key stages in the DTZ Re:Map capacity
assessment and the critical assumptions underpinning our analysis.
47
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
STAGE 1: Population and Spend Forecasts
4.11
The starting point for the capacity assessment is to define the study (or catchment) area and
to understand current shopping patterns. The key assumptions are as follows:
(i) Study Area
4.12
The study area is based on the zones used for the household interview survey, as described
in Appendix 4 (Volume 2 to this study). The key areas are briefly described below and are
illustrated by Map 4.1:
•
‘Core’ area – comprises survey zones 1 – 3. This broadly approximates to the North
Norfolk District area.
•
‘Secondary’ area – comprises zones 4 – 7. These outer areas help DTZ to identify
and model the potential ‘inflow’/‘outflow’ of spend to, and from, the District area.
Map 4.1: The ‘core’ and ‘secondary’ areas
(ii) Population
4.13
The base year population estimates have been derived in-house using the MapInfo
Geographic Information System (GIS). This runs the TargetPro demographic and
spending datasets, based on the 2001 Census results. According to this dataset the total
resident population in the study area at 2001 was c.270,118, of which approximately twofifths lived in the ‘core’ (or District) area (see Table 4.2 below).
4.14
DTZ’s population projections to 2016 are based on two different sources (as agreed with
North Norfolk District Council):
48
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
The County Council’s ‘policy-led’ population projections result in a total population
growth of +4.2% between 2004 and 2016 (see Table 4.2).
•
The 2003 ONS ‘past trends’ population projections result in a higher population
growth over the forecast period of +10.6% (see Table 4.2).
Table 4.2
Population projections (2004 – 2016)
Total Population
2001
Growth (%)
2004
2008
2016
2004 - 2016
COUNTY COUNCIL PROJECTIONS:
‘Core’ Area
106,834
107,456
108,290
109,979
+2.3%
‘Secondary’ Area
163,284
165,415
168,301
174,227
+5.3%
TOTAL:
270,118
272,871
276,592
284,206
+4.2%
106,834
109,359
112,819
120,071
+9.8%
‘Secondary’ Area
163,284
167,590
173,510
185,987
+11.0%
TOTAL:
270,118
276,949
286,329
306,058
+10.5%
ONS PROJECTIONS:
‘Core’ Area
Source:
4.15
DTZ Re:Map (Stage 1)
The testing of these ‘low’ and ‘high’ growth options will clearly have implications for the
forecast residual expenditure and floorspace capacity up to 2016.
(iii) Spend Estimates
4.16
4.17
DTZ has used a ‘goods-based’ approach (rather than the ‘business-based’ approach) to
determine average spend levels at the base year and forecast growth up to 2016. This
approach is in accordance with the advice set out in PPS6 (para. 3.10). We also test the
following different spend growth rates:
•
Convenience goods retailing - DTZ test the implications of a ‘lower’ (+0.3% per
annum) and ‘higher’ (+0.9% per annum) spend projection. These are based on the
‘long term’ and ‘short term’ historical growth trends set out in MapInfo Brief 04/02
“Goods based retail expenditure estimates and price indices” (April 2004). Although
DTZ understand that retail planning consultants are now testing the higher spend
growth rate to support new convenience goods floorspace, we still question whether
projections based on ‘short term’ historical trends are sustainable over the long term.
This is because national and regional economies are subject to cycles of growth and
decline (“boom and bust”) and this will inevitably impact on consumer confidence and
spending.
•
Comparison goods retailing - DTZ test a growth rate of +4.4% per annum, which
represents a ‘best fit’ estimate based on the long term historical trend derived from
MapInfo Brief 04/02 and Experian’s “Retail Planner Briefing Note 1.2” (November
2003).
Based on the population and spend growth projections tested, Table 4.3 sets out the
forecast growth in available spend for both comparison and convenience goods.
49
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
Table 4.3
Forecast growth in total comparison and convenience goods spend (2004 – 2016)
Total Available Spend (£ million)
Growth (%)
2004
2008
2016
2004 - 2016
Scenario 1:
418.5
428.9
451.4
+8.0%
Scenario 2:
420.5
441.8
487.8
+16.0%
Scenario 3:
426.8
457.4
525.3
+23.1%
Scenario 1:
777.3
936.5
1,357.7
+74.7%
Scenario 2:
788.9
969.0
1,462.0
+85.3%
Scenario 3:
777.3
936.5
1,357.7
+74.7%
CONVENIENCE GOODS
COMPARISON GOODS
Source:
DTZ Re:Map (Stage 1)
4.18
The table shows that the forecast growth in total available convenience goods spending
ranges from +8.0% (using the lower spend and ‘policy-led’ population projections) to
+23.1% (based on the higher spend and ONS ‘past trends’ population projections).
4.19
The forecast growth for comparison goods is significantly higher, ranging from +74.7%
(based on the ‘policy-led’ population projections) to +85.3% (using the ONS ‘past trends’
population projections).
4.20
The substantial forecast growth in the comparison goods retail market (75% - 85%),
compared to the lower growth for convenience goods retailing (8% - 23%), will have
important implications for the capacity for new retail development. In particular, it means
that there is more limited potential for new foodstore and convenience goods floorspace
across the District up to 2016.
STAGE 2: Floorspace Stock and Commitments
4.21
1
This stage in the analysis sets out DTZ estimates of existing non-food and food retail
floorspace within North Norfolk District. DTZ has drawn on the Experian Goad national
dataset to derive the floorspace data for some centres, supported by our own estimates of
floorspace for those centres not covered(1). All the floorspace stock and pipeline estimates
have been checked and verified by the District Council. At 2004, DTZ therefore estimate
that there is:
•
c.42,430 sq.m net of comparison goods retailing in the District’s eight main
centres(2), of which 3,582 sq.m net is in out-of-centre locations(3).
•
c.22,115 sq.m net of convenience goods retailing, of which more than one-third
(7,435 sq.m net) of the current stock of is in out-of-centre locations. The main out-ofcentre foodstores are the Co-Op and Morrison stores in both Cromer and Fakenham.
North Walsham, Cromer, Sheringham and Fakenham are the main centres covered by Goad plans.
2
North Walsham’s town centre floorspace also comprises the non-food element in the J.Sainsbury and Lidl Foodstores,
estimated by the Council to be 945 sq.m net in total.
3
The out-of-centre floorspace comprises the Argos, Carpet Warehouse and MFI in Cromer, along with the small non-food
element of the Co-op and Morrisons foodstores (estimated by the Council to be c.4% of total convenience goods space). In
Fakenham this comprises the Focus store, as well as the small non-food element of the Co-op and Morrisons foodstores
(estimated by the Council to be c.4% of total convenience goods space).
50
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
4.22
Table 4.4 lists the major new comparison and convenience goods floorspace commitments
(and proposals) identified by the Local Authority. The table shows that there are currently
only two retail schemes with planning permission in the District:
•
Fakenham – DTZ understand from the Council that the permission for the 390 sq.m
net extension to the Morrisons foodstore also allows for a maximum of 20% of the
store’s total sales area to be for non-food retailing. As a result, the extended foodstore
will have a smaller convenience goods sales after extension (2,072 sq.m) than before
(2,112 sq.m), due to the increase in its non-food sales area from 88 sq.m net (currently
c.4% of total space) to 518 sq.m net (20% of total space); and
•
North Walsham - the out-of-centre DIY store and garden centre on the former
General Trailers site, on Cromer Road, is currently under construction and DTZ
understand that it will be occupied by Focus.
Table 4.4
Retail Floorspace Commitments and Proposals (at March 2005)
Application
No:
Centre
Location
Town Centre (TC) /
Out-of-Centre (OC)
Scheme
Status
Net
Space
(sq.m.)
2,396
WITH PLANNING PERMISSION:
North Walsham (1)
2003/0694
Former General Trailers’ site, Cromer
Rd (OC)
Focus store &
garden centre
Full planning permission
– July 2003
Fakenham (2)
2004/0393
Morrisons store, Clipbush Lane (OC)
extension
Planning permission –
Jan 2005
390
Sheringham (3)
2000/0100
Station Car Park, Cromer Rd. (TC)
Budgens
Full planning permission
granted – Dec.2003 (7)
750
PLANNING APPLICATIONS:
Sheringham (4)
2003/0991
Land at Cromer Road (TC)
Tesco
Authority to approve (8)
1,500
Wells OOC
2000/1077
Former Garage, Freeman Street (OC)
Budgens
Resolution to approve(8)
464
2003/1947
Former Aldiss Factory (TC)
Tesco
Authority to approve (8)
1,900
2003/0855
Morrisons Store (OC)
extension
Application(8)
Fakenham
(5)
Cromer (6)
Source:
North Norfolk District Council (May 2005)
Notes:
(1) Garden centre comprises a sales area of 929 sq.m
422
(2) Conditioned to limit non-food net space of total extended store (2,590 sq.m net) to 20%. Will result in a slightly
smaller convenience goods sales area after extension (2,072 sq.m) than before (2,112 sq.m).
(3) Existing Budgens in centre will close if this store is developed.
(4) Comprises non-food sales area of 300 sq.m net and food space of 1,200 sq.m net.
(5) Comprises a gross internal floorspace of 3,757 sq.m (including café in a mezzanine). The original application was for
1,560 sq.m of net convenience space and 210 sq.m of non-food space. This was revised following a January 2005
Committee to 1,900 sq.m of net space, with up to 20% comprising comparison goods (380 sq.m net)
(6) Conditioned to limit non-food net space of total extended store (2,745 sq.m net) to 20%. Will result in a slightly
smaller convenience goods sales area after extension (2,196 sq.m) than before (2,230 sq.m).
(7) The local authority has land ownership on the site and have informed DTZ that they can, therefore, influence whether
development goes ahead.
(8) All subject to Section 106 agreements
4.23
The table also shows that there is significant pressure for new food and convenience goods
retailing across the District. For example:
•
The new Tesco foodstore applications in Fakenham and Sheringham, if allowed, could
add 2,720 sq.m net to the existing floorspace stock of convenience goods space and
680 sq.m net to the comparison goods stock.
51
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
Budgens has planning permission for a new store in Sheringham, although DTZ
understand that the Council has land ownership interests on the site and can, therefore,
influence whether the development goes ahead or not. For this reason DTZ do not
treat it as a commitment. Budgens also has an application for a new store in Wells
and, together, these stores could add a further 1,214 sq.m net to the convenience goods
stock. Although DTZ understand that the existing Budgens store in Sheringham would
close, resulting in a total net addition of c.1,000 sq.m net.
•
The Morrisons extension in Fakenham (with planning permission) and the proposed
extension in Cromer (if allowed) would actually reduce the total combined
convenience goods floorspace of both stores from 4,342 sq.m to 4,268 sq.m net, as
conditions allow for 20% of the total sales area to be set aside for non-food retailing
compared to the current ratio of c.4% estimated by the District Council. This will
effectively increase the non-food floorspace of these two stores from c.181 sq.m net to
c.1,067 sq.m net.
STAGE 3: Market Share Estimates
4.24
Stage 3 sets out our estimates of the market shares of centres and stores in North Norfolk’s
main centres, as well as for the other main competing shopping locations(4). This is an
important input to the DTZ Re:Map model, as it determines the total ‘potential’ turnover
(Stage 5) and average sales densities (Stage 6) of existing centres and stores at the base
year. The detailed Re:Map tables for comparison and convenience goods are set out in
Appendices 9 – 14.
4.25
Market shares are normally based on judgements as to the relative attraction of centres and
stores, according to the ‘critical mass’ (i.e. scale) and quality of their retail offer and
shopping environment. They are also influenced, to varying degrees, by other factors, such
as accessibility and parking. To help inform these market share judgments DTZ has drawn
on the results of the market research. For example, the household survey specifically
asked respondents where they shop for convenience goods (both for main ‘bulk’ and ‘topup’ food purchases) and comparison goods (for clothing & footwear, furniture/carpets,
large and small electrical goods and DIY goods).
4.26
Although the household survey provides an important matrix for identifying shopper
preferences and patterns across the study area (and thereby deriving spending flows), the
derived market shares can only provide a broad indication as to how much total potential
spend is being attracted to North Norfolk’s main centres and stores at the base year. This
is because the questions in the household survey do not allow DTZ to accurately prescribe
market shares for a number of reasons:
4.27
•
the surveys only ask people where they shop for different types of goods and not how
much they spend per trip.
•
the responses to household surveys tend to over-estimate the attraction and market
shares of larger centres and stores which people visit less frequently, whereas they
under-estimate the day-to-day draw of smaller centres and stores.
DTZ can test the robustness of the survey-based market share assumptions using the
outputs of the DTZ Re:Map model. In this case the derived ‘potential’ average sales
densities (Stage 6) are benchmarked against the company averages for foodstores (as
published by Mintel) and our own informed judgements as to the potential turnover of
4
The market share estimates represent the proportion of available comparison and convenience goods spend within the ‘core’
and ‘secondary’ areas derived by existing centres and stores.
52
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
North Norfolk’s main centres and stores. Where adjustments are necessary (either
upwards or downwards), then by a process of iteration we are able to arrive at what we
consider to be more robust and realistic market share levels.
4.28
Table 4.5 sets out the ‘unadjusted’ market shares for the ‘core’ (District) area derived
directly from the household survey. It also shows the adjustments that DTZ has made to
these shares to produce, in our judgement, more realistic average turnover to floorspace
ratios (see Stages 5 and 6 below).
Table 4.5
Potential market shares of centres and stores in the ‘core’ area only (%)
Comparison Goods
Unadjusted
Adjusted
Unadjusted
Adjusted
Hoveton
0.5
2.0
2.1
3.0
Stalham
1.8
1.8
5.7
8.5
North Walsham
4.0
6.0
13.4
13.4
Cromer: Town Centre
5.5
5.5
3.2
3.2
Cromer: Out-of-Centre
-
1.7
15.7
15.7
Sheringham
1.6
3.5
0.8
2.5
Holt
5.3
5.0
2.5
2.0
Wells Next The Sea
0.3
0.5
1.3
1.3
Fakenham: Town Centre
7.1
7.1
4.4
4.5
Fakenham: Out-of-Centre
Sub-Total:
-
1.0
10.0
10.0
26.1
34.1
59.1
64.1
Kings Lynn
4.5
3.0
0.5
0.4
Norwich
46.0
39.0
15.7
11.2
Great Yarmouth
7.4
5.0
8.3
7.3
Other Shops and Stores(1)
13.6
11.3
15.8
13.8
Special Forms of Trading (3)
Source:
Notes:
4.29
Convenience Goods
2.4
7.6
0.5
3.2
Sub-Total:
73.9
65.9
40.8
35.9
TOTAL(3):
100
100
100
100
Derived from Household Surveys. See DTZ ReMap, (Stage 3)
1.
“Other shops and stores” comprises all other comparison and convenience goods floorspace
both within and outside of the ‘core’ (District) area.
2.
Based on MapInfo research, we also assume that 7.6% of comparison goods spend is on
‘special forms of trading’ (SFT). This pertains to spending that does not take place in shops
(i.e. vending machines, mail order and Internet shopping). We have made a similar, albeit
lower, adjustment of 3.2% to the convenience goods spend, based on MapInfo research.
3.
Figures may not sum due to rounding
The ‘adjusted’ and ‘unadjusted’ market shares confirm the relative strength and attraction
of North Norfolk’s main centres and stores (particularly Cromer, Fakenham and North
Walsham), compared to the District’s smaller villages and shops (which are included in the
‘other shops and stores’ category). The table also highlights the significant ‘leakage’ of
shoppers and spend to the larger centres and stores outside the District. The headline
results are as follows:
•
The ‘unadjusted’ market shares indicate that the District’s eight main centres are
achieving a combined market share of just over 26% of comparison goods spend in the
53
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
‘core’ area (adjusted upwards to 34.1% by DTZ) and over 59% for convenience goods
retailing (adjusted upwards to 64.1% by DTZ).
•
This higher ‘retention level’ for convenience goods shopping reflects the fact that
people generally travel shorter distances for their main ‘bulk’ and ‘top-up’ food
purchases.
•
There is a significant ‘leakage’ of shoppers and spend to centres and stores outside the
‘core’ area. In particular, the three larger centres of Norwich, Great Yarmouth and
Kings Lynn achieve an ‘adjusted’ market share for comparison goods retailing of 47%
within the ‘core’ area, although this falls to under 19% for convenience goods spend.
4.30
DTZ has also benchmarked the District’s market share and retention levels with the
estimates set out in the 1995 North Norfolk District-Wide Shopping Study (revised).
Although the methodologies are not directly comparable, the results do appear to show that
the District’s retention level of convenience goods shopping has fallen from c.78% in
1995. For comparison goods the retention level has fallen from 42% over the same period.
This fall reflects the increased investment and development in Norwich’s town centre and
out-of-centre retail sector over the last decade, along with other major new developments
elsewhere in the region.
4.31
It is DTZ’s view that the District’s main centres will need to ‘claw back’ a proportion of
the shoppers (and comparison goods spend) currently leaking to these major shopping
locations, if they are to remain sustainable and viable shopping locations over the longer
term. We test this ‘claw back’ scenario for non-food retailing only as part of the
‘regeneration and development’ option (Scenario 3).
STAGE 4: Trade Draw Estimates
4.32
The trade draw of a centre or store from within its defined catchment area (i.e. the ‘core’
and ‘secondary’ areas) is an output of the market share estimates (at Stage 3). Dependent
on their size, location, accessibility and quality of shopping provision, we normally assume
that a certain proportion of the total estimated turnover of a centre or store will also be
derived from beyond the study area (in this case from beyond the ‘secondary’ area).
4.33
In this case, the street interview surveys help to determine the origins of the respondents
(by postcode) and the proportion of visitors that each centre draws from within and beyond
their ‘core’ and ‘secondary’ areas. The profile of each centre is set out in Table 4.6 below.
54
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
Table 4.6
‘Origins’ matrix of shoppers and visitors to North Norfolk’s main centres (%)
% of respondents interviewed in centres living in:
‘Secondary’ Area
‘Elsewhere’
43
11
46
100
Hoveton
4.34
TOTAL
‘Core’ Area
Stalham
85
1
14
100
North Walsham
74
10
16
100
Cromer
56
6
38
100
Sheringham
53
1
46
100
Holt
46
11
43
100
Wells Next The Sea
23
6
71
100
Fakenham
58
25
17
100
Source:
Derived from Centre Surveys. See DTZ Re:Map (Stage 4)
Notes:
(1) Please note that the draw profile represents the origins of respondents interviewed in each
centre and not the trade derived from the different catchment areas.
The table clearly shows the impact of tourists and visitors on the wider trade draw profile
of certain centres. According to the market research the coastal resorts and visitor
destinations of Wells, Hoveton, Sheringham, Holt and Cromer all have a higher draw from
beyond the ‘core’ and ‘secondary’ areas. Figure 4.1 illustrates our adjustments to this
‘origins matrix’ to produce, in our judgement, robust trade draw profiles for the District’s
main centres and stores based on our assumptions as to the potential impact of tourist and
visitor spend on ‘year-round’ turnover performance.
Figure 4.1: Derived and adjusted trade draw from outside the ‘core’ and ‘secondary’ areas
100
Origins of respondents to Centre Surveys
90
DTZ trade draw estimates for Comparison Goods only
80
% of respondents
DTZ trade draw estimates for Convenience Goods only
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
el
ls
W
m
ha
St
al
ha
m
er
in
g
t
Sh
W
or
th
N
H
ol
al
sh
am
to
n
H
ov
e
ro
m
er
C
Fa
ke
nh
am
0
4.35
It is DTZ’s judgement that North Norfolk’s centres are achieving a slightly wider draw for
comparison goods shopping than for food retailing, as a significant proportion of the nonfood shops in the District’s main holiday destinations are specifically marketed at tourists
and visitors.
55
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
4.36
The reduced trade draw profile for convenience goods retailing is based on national
research evidence, which indicates that shoppers generally tend not to travel more than a
ten minute drive to carry out their main ‘bulk’ shopping purchases. For example, Mintel’s
1994 Food Retailing report also stated that: “… significant incentives are likely to be
needed to make shoppers drive more than 15-20 minutes from their homes on a regular
basis”. Nevertheless, there are some exceptions where people do make choices based on
price, convenience to place of work, quality of offer and brands. In the case of North
Norfolk’s convenience offer, DTZ consider that some of the food and convenience stores
are achieving wider trade draws than national averages, due to the significant year-round
spend by visitors and tourists on food items as part of their trips to the area, as well as the
strong and growing second-home market.
4.37
In this case we therefore assume that shops and stores in the main tourist and visitor
destinations of Wells, Hoveton, Holt, Cromer and Sheringham are drawing c.35%-40% of
their year-round convenience goods turnover from outside the Norfolk area. In contrast,
we assume that North Walsham, Fakenham and Stalham are drawing c.15% of their total
convenience goods turnover from outside the ‘core’ and ‘secondary’ areas, as they
primarily function as more ‘traditional’ shopping destinations serving the day-to-day
‘bulk’ and ‘top-up’ food shopping needs of their local catchment populations.
STAGES 5 & 6: ‘Potential’ Turnover Forecasts and Average Sales Densities
4.38
The ‘potential’ turnover forecasts (Stage 5) and average turnover to floorspace ratios
(Stage 6) are key outputs of DTZ’s market share and trade draw assumptions. As
described above, these outputs have been used at all stages of the analysis to test and adjust
the market share and trade draw profiles to ensure that (in DTZ’s judgement) the final base
year turnover estimates are both realistic and robust.
4.39
The table below sets out the ‘unadjusted’ average sales densities for the existing
comparison and convenience goods floorspace in the District’s main centres, based on the
‘raw’ market shares derived directly from the household survey. It also shows DTZ’s
‘adjusted’ average sales levels, based on our revisions to the market shares and trade draws
derived from the market research.
Table 4.7
Average Turnover to Floorspace Ratios at 2004
£ per sq.metre
(@ constant 2001 prices)
Comparison Goods
Convenience Goods
Unadjusted (1)
Adjusted (2)
Unadjusted (1)
Adjusted (2)
£4,739
£4,757
£4,628
£3,836
-
£3,625
£7,030
£8,308
£5,164
£5,043
£6,269
£5,883
-
£3,212
£5,678
£8,258
£7,292
Cromer
Centre
Cromer
Out-of-Centre
Fakenham
Centre
Fakenham
Out-of-Centre
North Walsham
Centre
£2,648
£4,772
£7,371
Hoveton
Centre
£793
£4,487
£3,992
£6,869
Holt
Centre
£6,741
£6,090
£13,046
£7,547
Wells Next the Sea
Centre
£3,153
£3,576
£14,093
£6,702
Sheringham
Centre
£1,937
£3,728
£1,220
£3,575
Stalham
Centre
£4,131
£4,144
£6,165
£11,041
Source:
DTZ Re:Map (Stage 6)
Notes:
(1) Based on ‘raw’ market shares derived from the household survey.
(2) Adjusted by DTZ to produce more robust average sale densities, in line with national company
averages for foodstore operators and our judgement as to the non-food trading performance of
the main study centres.
56
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
4.40
The adjustments for convenience goods retailing have been informed by the national
company turnover averages detailed in Mintel’s ‘2004 Retail Rankings’. For comparison
goods retailing, we draw on the findings of the centre healthchecks and surveys, which
help to establish the relative status, attraction and performance of the District’s main
centres, as well as our own judgement as to the likely trading performance of these centres.
The main adjustments are as follows:
•
Comparison goods retailing – DTZ has adjusted the market shares for North
Walsham, Sheringham and particularly Hoveton upwards, as the potential average
sales densities derived from the ‘unadjusted’ shares appear to be too low. In the case
of Holt, we have adjusted the survey-based market share and trade draw estimates
slightly downwards, as the derived average sales density of £6,741 per sq.m is (in our
judgement) too high relative to the other centres in the District (although we accept
that it may reflect the centre’s more specialist and higher value retail offer). Neither of
the out-of-centre retail facilities in Fakenham nor Cromer registered a market share
based on the household survey results. DTZ has therefore tested market share and
trade draw levels that are broadly consistent with the average sales densities of
retailers operating in these out-of-centre locations.
•
Convenience goods retailing – DTZ has increased the market shares of some centres
and stores (particularly Hoveton, Sheringham and Stalham) to produce average sales
densities that are more in line with the company averages identified by Mintel. For
example, Tesco is the main food retailer in Stalham and its company average is
c.£12,000 - £13,000 per sq.m. The only centres and/or stores that require a significant
downward adjustment in their market share and trade draw levels are Holt and Wells.
According to the market research, these centres appear to be achieving convenience
goods turnover levels significantly in excess of what would normally be expected for
the relative size and quality of their food and convenience offer. This may reflect the
fact that stores and shops in these two popular holiday destinations could be ‘overtrading’ at the base year, although this is difficult to verify without more detailed sales
data for individual stores.
STAGE 7: Retail Capacity Assessment
4.41
This final stage sets out DTZ’s capacity forecasts at 2008, 2011 and 2016(5).
4.42
In DTZ’s Re:Map model the residual spend and floorspace capacity forecasts are
determined by the difference between the ‘derived’ and ‘potential’ turnover of existing
centres and stores. In brief, by constraining the growth of existing retail floorspace using
the ‘efficiency’ ratio, DTZ Re:Map produces a lower ‘derived’ turnover than the
‘potential’ calculated at Stage 5 (which is based on the estimated market share of higher
forecast growth in population and spending). The difference between the ‘derived’ and
‘potential’ turnover produces the ‘residual’ expenditure, which represents spend over and
above that required by existing floorspace in the study area to remain viable. This can then
be converted into floorspace capacity using robust average sales densities for new retailing.
4.43
The results of the different retail capacity scenarios for comparison and convenience goods
retailing are briefly described below:
(i) Convenience goods retail capacity assessment
4.44
5
The ‘global’ residual expenditure forecasts are set out below(6). Please note that Scenarios
1(a), 2(a) and 3(a) assume that existing businesses and floorspace do not achieve annual
Please note that none of our calculations include inflation and are expressed in constant 2001 prices.
57
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
growth in their base year turnover levels over and above inflation (i.e. an ‘efficiency’
growth rate). Although this provides a ‘sensitivity’ test of the outputs of the capacity
assessments, DTZ recommend that the forecasts derived from Scenarios 1-3 (i.e. those that
assume a growth in turnover ‘efficiency’) are more robust and realistic, and are also in
accordance with guidance set out in PPS6.
Table 4.8
Convenience goods residual spend forecasts, 2004 - 2016
£ million
2004
2008
2011
2016
Scenario 1:
0
2.8
5.0
8.6
Scenario 1(a):
0
3.4
6.1
10.6
Scenario 2:
0
5.5
9.8
17.4
Scenario 2(a):
0
7.4
13.2
23.2
Scenario 3:
0
9.4
16.9
30.5
Scenario 3(a):
0
11.3
20.4
36.4
Source: DTZ Re:Map (Stage 7)
4.45
DTZ understand from the District Council that the only planning permission (as at May
2005) is for the 390 sq.m net extension to the Morrisons store in Fakenham. As stated
previously, this permission also allows for a maximum of 20% of the store’s total sales
area to be set aside for non-food retailing. As a result, the extended foodstore will have a
smaller convenience goods sales area after extension (2,072 sq.m) than before (2,112
sq.m), due to the increase in its non-food sales area from 88 sq.m net (currently c.4% of
total space) to 518 sq.m net (20% of total space). All things being equal the net impact of
this extension will be to slightly increase the net residual spend available over the forecast
period by c.£0.4m. This has therefore been added to the residual spend forecasts set out in
Table 4.9, to produce the following revised forecasts.
Table 4.9
Revised net convenience goods residual spend forecasts, 2004 – 2016
Strips out turnover potential of any new commitments
£ million
2004
2008
2011
2016
Scenario 1:
0
3.2
5.3
9.0
Scenario 1(a):
0
3.8
6.5
10.9
Scenario 2:
0
5.9
10.2
17.8
Scenario 2(a):
0
7.8
13.5
23.6
Scenario 3:
0
9.8
17.3
30.9
Scenario 3(a):
0
11.7
20.7
36.8
Source: DTZ Re:Map (Stage 8b)
6
As for comparison goods, these ‘global’ residual spend estimates comprise the forecast growth for both town and district
centres in North Norfolk, as well as existing non-central floorspace.
58
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
4.46
The table shows that DTZ’s lower forecasts of spend and population growth, combined
with an ‘efficiency’ rate of +0.1% per annum (Scenario 1), result in a net residual spend of
£3.2 million in 2008, rising to £9 million by 2016. In comparison, the higher growth
forecasts and higher ‘efficiency’ rate of +0.3% per annum (Scenario 3), result in c.£9.8
million of residual spend by 2008, rising to c.£30.9 million at 2016.
4.47
The table also shows that stripping out the ‘efficiency’ growth rate increases the residual
spend for each of the scenarios. For example, removing the +0.3% per annum ‘efficiency’
growth rate in Scenario 2(a) effectively increases the residual spend available in 2016 by
c.£5.8m, from £17.8m to £23.6m. Nevertheless, DTZ believe that the most robust
approach is to allow for an ‘efficiency’ growth in the turnover of existing businesses and
floorspace in accordance with PPS6. We therefore place greater weight on the capacity
forecasts for Scenarios 1, 2 and 3.
4.48
In order to assess the potential capacity for the proposed new foodstores and extensions
currently being considered by the District Council, DTZ has benchmarked the net residual
spend forecast in Table 4.9 with our estimates of the potential sales performance of the
proposed convenience goods floorspace. Table 4.10 below sets out the potential turnover
of the new foodstores, based on the reasonable assumption that they will trade at (or close
to) their national company averages.
4.49
Please note, however, that the proposed 422 sq.m net extension to the other Morrisons
store in Cromer will, according to DTZ’s forecasts, result in a reduction in the overall
convenience goods turnover of this store. As with the Fakenham extension, there is a
proposal for a condition to allow up to 20% of the sales area of the store to be set aside for
non-food retailing. As a result, the total convenience goods sales area of the store will fall
from 2,230 sq.m to 2,196 sq.m, whereas the non food space will increase from 93 sq.m
(equivalent to 4% of the total sales area - according to the District Council’s figures) to
549 sq.m net (equivalent to 20% of the total sales area). All things being equal, DTZ
forecast that this will reduce the overall convenience goods turnover of the foodstore by
c.£0.33m.
Table 4.10
Forecast turnover potential of foodstore proposals
net sq.metres
average sales
density
potential
turnover
Wells
Budgens
464
£5,500
£2.6m
Sheringham (1)
Budgens
750
£5,500
£3.1m
Fakenham
Tesco
1,520
£12,000
£18.2m
Sheringham
Tesco
1,200
£12,000
£14.4m
422
-
-
Morrisons
(2)
Cromer
TOTAL TURNOVER POTENTIAL:
Notes
c.£38m
(1)
DTZ estimate that the existing Budgens on Church Street is currently achieving a total
turnover of over £1 million. The new larger store will therefore result in a net increase in total
sales of c.£3.1 million, assuming that the existing Budgens store will close.
(2)
DTZ understand that the total convenience goods sales area of the Morrisons store in
Cromer will fall if the extension is allowed, from 2,230 sq.m to 2,196 sq.m net. This is
because the planning permission will allow for 20% of the total sales area to be set aside for
non-food retailing, compared with c.4% currently. This will also result in a fall in the total
convenience goods turnover of the store of c.£0.3m.
59
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
4.50
4.51
Comparisons between Tables 4.9 and 4.10 confirm that there is not sufficient forecast net
residual spend up to 2016 to support all the foodstore proposals currently before the local
authority. DTZ therefore advise the Council that the potential development options are as
follows:
•
Scenario 1: ‘Baseline’ – This lower spend growth scenario indicates that there is
sufficient residual spend at 2016 (c£9.0m) to support the combined forecast turnover
of both the proposed Budgens stores in Sheringham and Wells (c.£5.7m), along with
the Morrisons extension in Cromer. This will leave c.£3.3m of residual spend, which
could support a smaller discount food retailer, or possibly a foodstore extension.
There is not the capacity, according to this scenario, to support either of the Tesco
proposals.
•
Scenario 2: ‘Higher Spend Growth’ - The net residual spend forecast at 2011 of
c.£10.2m will support both the Budgens stores proposed in Sheringham and Wells, as
well as the Morrisons extension. At 2016 the net residual spend of c.£17.8m will
support the Tesco proposal in Sheringham and one of the Budgens stores, but not both,
along with the Morrisons extension. Alternatively, the forecast residual spend at 2016
could support the Tesco proposal in Fakenham and the Morrisons extension, but no
other foodstore proposals.
•
Scenario 3: ‘High Spend and Population Growth’ – This scenario will generate
sufficient residual spend at 2011 (c.£17.3m) to support the Tesco store in Sheringham
and one of the proposed Budgens stores in Wells or Sheringham, along with the
Morrisons extension. At 2016 the net residual spend is forecast to increase to
c.£30.9m and this could sustain one or other of the following development options: (i)
either one of the Tesco proposals in Sheringham or Fakenham (but not both), along
with both of the proposed new Budgens stores in Wells and Sheringham, as well as the
Morrisons extension; or (ii) the Morrisons extension and possibly both the Tesco
proposals, although DTZ forecast that their combined turnovers could exceed the
residual spend by c.£1.7m.
The ‘global’ residual spend forecasts derived in Stage 7 can also be converted into retail
floorspace capacity estimates by applying turnover to floorspace ratios that are broadly
equivalent to the average company trading performance of new stores and retail facilities.
To inform our judgement we draw on the national averages for the major foodstore
operators, as published by Mintel. Figure 4.2 illustrates the company average sales
densities since 1996/97.
60
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
Figure 4.2: Average sales densities of major discount and national foodstore operators9
Average Sales in 2003/04
Short-term Average (1996 - 2004)
Discounters
Co-op Group
Lidl (UK)
Kwik Save Ltd
Netto Ltd
Aldi Stores Ltd (UK)
Iceland
Budgens Ltd
Multiple Foodstores
Somerfield Ltd
Safeway Stores
Waitrose Ltd
J Sainsbury's
Marks & Spencer
Wm Morrison
Tesco (UK)
ASDA Stores Ltd
£0
£2,000
£4,000
£6,000
£8,000
£10,000
£12,000
£14,000
Company Average Sales Densities
Source: Mintel 2004
4.52
For the ‘top six’ national operators (including Morrisons/Safeway) the company averages
indicate a broad turnover to floorspace ratio of c.£10,175 per sq.m, although this ranges
from c. £7,835 for Safeway to £13,425 for Tesco in 2003/04. For the discount/value food
retailers the broad average sales density is c.£5,050 per sq.m, although this also ranges
from £3,025 for Lidl to £6,220 for Somerfield stores in 2003/04.
4.53
For the purpose of our assessment, DTZ has applied an average sales density of
£5,000/sq.m to the ‘global’ residual spend forecasts to test the broad potential capacity for
discount food operators in the District and £10,000/sq.m to test the broad capacity for
major multiple foodstore retailers. The range of floorspace capacity forecasts for
Scenarios 1 - 3 are set out in Table 4.11 below:
Table 4.11
Convenience goods floorspace capacity, 2004 – 2016
Net square metres
2004
2008
2011
2016
Scenario 1:
0
300 – 600
500 – 1,100
900 – 1,800
Scenario 2:
0
600 – 1,200
1,000 – 2,000
1,700 – 3,400
Scenario 3:
0
1,000 – 1,900
1,700 – 3,400
3,000 – 6,000
Source: DTZ Re:Map (Stage 8c)
4.54
DTZ’s forecasts of residual net floorspace confirm that there is not sufficient capacity to
support all the foodstore proposals currently before the local authority.
9
Mintel’s figures are exclusive of VAT and DTZ has therefore adjusted the average sales density figures to be inclusive of VAT,
based on a rate of 8% per annum. Mintel’s figures are exclusive of storage and office space, but do include the sales space
devoted to comparison goods space, hence resulting in higher average sales densities for foodstores over recent years.
61
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
4.55
Scenario 3 does appear to indicate that the 3,000 sq.m net forecast capacity for a ‘top 6’
foodstore at 2016 would support both Tesco proposals (but no other foodstores), as they
have a combined space of 2,720 sq.m net. However, it is important to restate that this
capacity is based on new floorspace achieving an average sales density of c.£10,000 per
sq.m, whereas the Mintel research shows that the company averages for new Tesco stores
have consistently been over £12,000 per sq.m since 2000/01. If DTZ tested this higher
average sales density of £12,000 per sq.m, then the capacity for a ‘top 6’ food retailer only
at 2016 would fall to c.2,600 sq.m net, which is not sufficient to support both Tesco
proposals, even based on the higher growth scenario.
4.56
DTZ has not provided a breakdown as to the potential location of this new retail floorspace
on a centre-by-centre basis as we believe this will be overly prescriptive. DTZ also accept
that the Council may decide to allow levels of floorspace slightly in excess of the residual
spend and capacity forecasts determined by the Re:Map model. In the context of PPS6
(paragraphs 1.3 – 1.5) and the Government’s key objectives, this will be subject to the
Council being satisfied that the negative trade diversion will not undermine the vitality and
viability of existing towns and local centres and that the proposed store(s) will:
•
enhance consumer choice;
•
improve accessibility;
•
promote social inclusion;
•
encourage investment in deprived areas;
•
promote economic growth;
•
deliver more sustainable patterns of development; and
•
promote high quality and inclusive design.
4.57
DTZ advise the Council that any new foodstore developments should be located in, or on
the edge of town centres, and have strong pedestrian linkages to the prime shopping area
(see PPS6: Annex A, Table 2). This will help increase the range and choice of food
shopping to the local population, in the most sustainable and inclusive manner. If non-town
centre retailing is the only option to satisfy forecast demand and capacity, then the Council
will need to consider the use of planning conditions to minimise the potential impact on
high street retailing, possibly by introducing new and attractive linkages to town centre and
by limiting the range of non-food goods to be sold (PPS6: paras. 3.31 – 3.32).
4.58
Finally, it is DTZ’s view that North Norfolk’s retail market may not be in ‘equilibrium’ at
the base year, as the market shares derived from the household survey appear to indicate
that the District’s centres and stores, as a whole, are under-trading benchmarked against
national averages. DTZ believe that this reflects the relative affluence and mobility of the
District’s population; its older age profile; the largely rural nature of the District, which
results in a less dense population; and the more limited retail offer (particularly comparison
goods retailing) in the District’s main centres.
4.59
Nevertheless, the survey results also appear to show for convenience goods retailing that
the businesses in some centres are performing strongly. This is particularly the case in the
holiday destinations of Holt and Wells. This reflects the fact that the relative scale and
quality of the convenience and foodstore offer in these centres is lower than for the other
main centres in the District, but that both centres are attracting significant tourist and
visitor spend, particularly during the peak holiday periods. On this basis, DTZ therefore
advise the Council that they will need to consider the issue of over-trading for specific
planning applications based on the relative merits of each proposal, benchmarked against
the performance, vitality and viability of the existing centres.
62
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
(ii) Comparison goods retail capacity assessment
4.60
Table 4.12 sets out DTZ’s forecasts of the ‘global’ residual comparison goods expenditure
over the forecast period, which broadly represents the residual spend available for new
floorspace within North Norfolk District:
Table 4.12
Comparison goods residual spend forecasts, 2004 – 2016
£ million
2004
2008
2011
2016
Scenario 1:
0
27.3
52.0
104.0
Scenario 1(a):
0
19.0
36.6
74.9
Scenario 2:
0
32.8
63.4
128.8
Scenario 2(a):
0
24.3
47.8
99.3
Scenario 3:
0
33.2
66.4
135.0
Scenario 3(a):
0
25.0
51.2
106.3
Source:
Notes:
DTZ Re:Map (Stage 7)
Scenarios 1 – 3 assume an ‘efficiency’ growth rate of +1.5% per annum
Scenarios 1(a) – 3(a) assume an ‘efficiency’ growth rate of +2.5% per annum
4.61
In accordance with PPS6 (and specifically the ‘sequential approach’), these residual spend
forecasts comprise both the forecast growth for the main centres in North Norfolk, as well
as the growth forecast for existing non-town centre floorspace (over and above their
‘efficiency’ levels). This is a valid approach, as DTZ advise the Council that any potential
residual spend for new non-town centre floorspace should be directed towards town centre,
edge-of-centre and district/local centres in the first instance. Only where sequentially
preferable opportunity sites are not available, suitable or viable will it then be necessary for
the Council to consider out-of-centre locations.
4.62
The ‘global’ residual spend forecasts set out in Table 4.12 do not take into account the
current planned retail floorspace commitments. According to the Council, the only nonfood schemes with planning permission in the District at May 2005 are as follows:
4.63
•
The Focus DIY store on the former General Trailers’ site (Cromer Road) in North
Walsham. DTZ assume that this new store (2,396 sq.m net) will trade at an average
sales density of £1,600 - £2,500 per sq.m in 2008, which is equivalent to the national
trading average for a mix of DIY retailers (based on Mintel’s research). On this basis,
DTZ forecast that the new store could achieve a total comparison goods turnover of
c.£5.5 million in 2008.
•
The Morrisons extension in Fakenham will increase the non-food sales area of the
store from 88 sq.m to 518 sq.m, as the planning permission allows for 20% of the
store’s total sales area to be set aside for comparison goods. Assuming that this
floorspace achieves an average sales density of c.£5,000 per sq.m, DTZ forecast that
the non-food turnover of the store will increase from under £0.5m to c.£2.75m in 2008.
This represents a net increase in its total non-food sales of c.£2.3m.
Based on the above assumptions, Table 4.13 sets out the revised residual spend forecasts.
63
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
Table 4.13
Revised net comparison goods residual spend forecasts, 2004 – 2016
Strips out the potential turnover of new commitments
£ million
2004
2008
2011
2016
Scenario 1:
0
19.5
43.8
95.3
Scenario 1(a):
0
10.9
27.9
65.1
Scenario 2:
0
25.0
55.3
120.1
Scenario 2(a):
0
16.3
39.1
89.5
Scenario 3:
0
25.4
58.2
126.3
Scenario 3(a):
0
17.0
42.5
96.5
Source: DTZ Re:Map (Stage 8)
4.64
The ‘global’ residual spend forecasts derived in Stage 8 can be converted into net
comparison goods space by applying average sales densities that are broadly equivalent to
the trading performance of new stores and retail businesses. To inform our judgement,
DTZ has drawn on the latest research by Verdict - ‘Verdict on the High Street 2004’. They
suggest that high street locations are achieving broad average sales densities of up to
£4,200 per sq.m. Research by Mintel, as set out in the ‘2004 Retail Rankings’, also
indicates that ‘core’ high street retailers are achieving the following ranges in average sales
densities.
Table 4.14
Average Sales for high street retailers
Retail Business
Average Company Sales Density (£/sq m)
Average 1997 – 2003/04
Average 2000 – 2003/04
Dixons
£9,623
£10,108
John Lewis Plc
£5,113
£5,316
Laura Ashley UK
£3,685
£3,778
Marks & Spencer (non-food)
£4,736
£4,468
Ottakar’s Plc
£3,290
£3,440
The Pier Retail Group Ltd
£3,027
£3,186
ALL RETAILER AVERAGE:
£4,912
£5,049
Source: Mintel Interactive 2005
4.65
Based on the available research evidence and our own judgement as to the trading
performance of town centres and shopping centres as a whole, DTZ test floorspace
capacity based on average sales densities for new comparison goods retailing of £4,000 per
sq.m (see Table 4.15) and £6,000 per sq.m (see Table 4.16) at 2004(7). The key results are
briefly described below:
7
The ‘global’ forecasts do not take account of the current stock of vacant floorspace in the District’s main centres, which can
theoretically be deducted from the forecast capacity. However, DTZ’s audit and healthcheck of the District’s main centres
indicated that a large proportion of the existing vacant space is in non-prime shopping areas, and does not therefore meet the
requirements of multiple retailers for large modern units in prime locations.
64
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
Table 4.15
Comparison goods floorspace capacity, 2004 – 2016
Assumes an average sales density for new non-food space of £4,000 per sq.metre
Net square metres
2004
2008
2011
2016
Scenario 1:
0
4,600
9,900
19,900
Scenario 1(a):
0
2,500
5,900
12,100
Scenario 2:
0
5,900
12,500
25,100
Scenario 2(a):
0
3,700
8,200
16,600
Scenario 3:
0
6,000
13,100
26,400
Scenario 3(a):
0
3,800
8,900
17,900
Source: DTZ Re:Map (Stage 8)
Table 4.16
Comparison goods floorspace capacity, 2004 – 2016
Assumes an average sales density for new non-food space of £6,000 per sq.metre
Net square metres
2004
2008
2011
2016
Scenario 1:
0
3,100
6,600
13,300
Scenario 1(a):
0
1,600
3,900
8,100
Scenario 2:
0
3,900
8,300
16,700
Scenario 2(a):
0
2,500
5,500
11,100
Scenario 3:
0
4,000
8,700
17,600
Scenario 3(a):
0
2,600
6,000
12,000
Source: DTZ Re:Map (Stage 8)
4.66
•
Based on an average sales density of £4,000 per sq.m, Table 4.15 shows that the
capacity for new net non-food floorspace ranges from 19,900 sq.m - 26,400 sq.m at
2016, assuming an ‘efficiency’ rate for existing businesses of +1.5% per annum
(Scenario 1-3). Testing a higher annual ‘efficiency’ rate of +2.5% results in a reduced
floorspace capacity of 12,100 sq.m – 17,900 sq.m net by 2016 (Scenario 1a-3a).
•
Based on the higher average sales density of £6,000 per sq.m, Table 4.16 shows that
the capacity for new net non-food floorspace ranges from 13,300 sq.m – 17,600 sq.m
in 2016, assuming an ‘efficiency’ rate for existing businesses of +1.5% per annum.
Testing a higher annual ‘efficiency’ rate of +2.5% results in a reduced floorspace
capacity of 8,100 sq.m – 12,000 sq.m net by 2016.
DTZ has not, in this case, provided a detailed breakdown of the capacity forecasts on a
centre-by-centre basis, as we believe such allocations can be overly prescriptive. For
example, it is clear that some of North Norfolk’s centres do not have the physical capacity
to accommodate major new retail floorspace (such as Holt) and, therefore, some of this
capacity should be allocated, in the first instance, to other centres in the District.
65
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
4.67
Nevertheless, we do provide floorspace capacity forecasts for three broad geographic areas
in the District, as defined by the household survey (see Map 4.1), each of which comprises
a ‘growth’ town and/or ‘principal’ centre. The defined zones are set out below and the
capacity forecasts derived from Scenarios 1-3 are summarised by Table 4.17 (assuming an
average sales density for new floorspace of £4,000 per sq.m) and Table 4.18 (assuming an
average sales density of £6,000 per sq.m).
•
Zone 1: Comprising Wells and Fakenham.
•
Zone 2: Comprising Sheringham, Holt and Cromer.
•
Zone 3: Comprising Stalham, Hoveton and North Walsham.
Table 4.17
Comparison goods floorspace capacity, 2004 – 2016
Scenarios 1 – 3
Assumes an average sales density for new non-food space of £4,000 per sq.metre
Net square metres
2008
2011
2016
Fakenham / Wells
1,420 – 1,700
3,030 – 3,900
6,100 – 8,600
Cromer / Sheringham / Holt
2,600 – 3,200
4,740 – 6,100
8,800 – 11,300
570 – 1,000
2,110 – 3,000
5,030 – 6,500
4,590 – 5,900
9,880 – 13,000
19,930 – 26,400
North Walsham / Stalham / Hoveton
TOTAL:
Notes:
(1) Test an annual ‘efficiency’ growth rate for existing businesses and floorspace of +1.5%.
(2) Figures may not sum due to rounding.
Table 4.18
Comparison goods floorspace capacity, 2004 – 2016
Scenarios 1 – 3
Assumes an average sales density for new non-food space of £6,000 per sq.metre
Net square metres
Fakenham / Wells
Cromer / Sheringham / Holt
North Walsham / Stalham / Hoveton
TOTAL:
Notes:
2008
2011
2016
940 – 1,200
2,020 – 2,700
4,070 – 5,800
1,740 – 2,100
3,160 – 4,000
5,860 – 7,500
380 – 700
1,400 – 2,000
3,350 – 4,400
3,060 – 4,000
6,580 – 8,700
13,280 – 17,700
(1) Test an annual ‘efficiency’ growth rate for existing businesses and floorspace of +1.5%.
(2) Figures may not sum due to rounding.
4.68
The impact of increasing the annual ‘efficiency’ growth rate to +2.5%, as tested by
Scenarios 1(a), 2(a) and 3(a), is to lower the net floorspace capacity forecasts for the
‘cluster’ of centres. At 2016, for example, DTZ forecast that the capacity for new
floorspace (trading at either £4,000 or £6,000 per sq.m) is as follows:
•
Fakenham / Wells
=
2,500 – 6,000 sq.m net
•
Cromer / Sheringham / Holt
=
3,700 - 7,700 sq.m net
66
North Norfolk District Council
Retail and Commercial Leisure Study 2005
•
4.69
North Walsham / Stalham / Hoveton
=
1,800 – 4,200 sq.m net
DTZ advise the Council that this floorspace capacity will need to be concentrated in the
District’s principal and/or growth centres, as they have the existing critical mass of
retailing and catchment populations to sustain major new additions to their retail stock.
Summary
4.70
DTZ’s capacity forecasts indicate the following potential for new food and non-food
retailing in the District up to 2016:
(i) Significant capacity for new comparison goods retailing. Based on DTZ’s critical
assumption that new floorspace will trade at average sales densities of between £4,000
- £6,000 per sq.m and existing businesses will achieve annual ‘efficiency’ rates of
between +1.5% and +2.5% (over and above inflation), DTZ forecast a ‘global’
(District-wide) net floorspace capacity ranging from a ‘low’ of 8,100 sq.m at 2016
(Scenario 1a), to a ‘high’ of 26,400 sq.m net (Scenario 3). However, it is DTZ’s view
that Scenarios 1 and 1(a) provide the most robust capacity forecasts. They indicate the
potential for new net comparison goods space ranging from a ‘low’ of c.8,100
(Scenario 1a) to a ‘high’ of c.19,900 sq.m (Scenario 1).
(ii) Reduced capacity for new convenience goods retailing. This is largely explained by
the lower forecast growth in average spend levels for convenience goods (+0.3% and
+0.9% per annum) compared to comparison goods (+4.4% per annum). DTZ’s
forecasts indicate that there is not sufficient residual spend to support all the foodstore
applications currently being considered by the local planning authority. It is DTZ’s
view that Scenario 2 provides the most robust capacity forecasts and, therefore, the
preferred planning and development option for North Norfolk District.
4.71
DTZ advise that all forecast residual expenditure should be accommodated in town
centre/edge-of-centre locations in the first instance. The revised PPS6 confirms that town
centre, edge-of-centre and local centres should be the first choice for all new retail and
leisure development. DTZ therefore recommend that major new floorspace capacity up to
2016 is concentrated in the District’s ‘growth’ towns – namely Fakenham and North
Walsham – along with Cromer. These centres have the current critical mass of retailing
and catchments to sustain significant new additions to their retail stock, which will help to
reinforce their relative status as the principal shopping locations in the District.
4.72
However, this is dependent on there being suitable and viable sites available in these
centres, which are likely to be brought forward during the ‘life’ of the development plan.
This is considered in more detail in Volume 4 to this study.
4.73
Any proposals in out-of-centre locations will also need to be subject to the usual tests, as
set out in PPS6 (para. 3.4), and applicants will need to demonstrate:
•
•
•
•
•
4.74
the need for development (PPS6: paras. 3.8 – 3.11)
that the development is of an appropriate scale (para. 3.12)
that there are no more central sites for the development (paras. 3.13 – 3.19)
that there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres (paras. 3.20 –3.23)
that locations are accessible (paras. 3.24 – 3.27)
PPS6 states that, as a general rule, “the development should satisfy all these considerations
and, in making their decision, local planning authorities “should also consider relevant
local issues and other material considerations” (para. 3.5).
67