Ref:
Date:
A088632/TH/th
27 April 2016
F.A.O. Mr Ian Kemp
JCS Programme Officer
16 Cross Furlong
Wychbold
Droitwich Spa
Worcestershire
WR9 7TA
BY EMAIL
Dear Madam,
THE PEEL GROUP
GLOUCESTER, CHELTENHAM AND TEWKESBURY JOINT CORE STRATEGY EXAMINATION
MATTER 5 – EMPLOYMENT LAND PROVISION (POLICY SD3 – RETAIL HIERARCHY)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
We write, on behalf of our client, The Peel Group, further to the April JCS hearing session on retail matters,
to respond to the JCS authorities recently issued Retail Note dated 25 April 2016.
For ease of reference this letter responds to relevant matters in the same order as that set out in the JCS
Retail Note.
Gloucester Retail Commitments - Comparison Goods Floorspace
The JCS authorities “assume” that, because all retail commitments are subject to planning permissions for
a three to five year time period, all comparison goods retail commitments in Gloucester will be delivered in
the first five year period to 2021. No justification or explanation is provided to support whether, in reality,
the commitments will actually be delivered let alone whether they will be delivered in the next five years.
No judgment appears to have been applied to the realism of delivery. Thus the Authorities do not explain
why, in planning for comparison goods retail needs, they essentially propose to rely to a large extent upon
commitments for a foodstore and a trade warehouse.
Throughout the whole JCS process, despite there being numerous opportunities to do so, the JCS
Authorities have refused to provide any explanation or justification as to why all comparison goods retail
commitments in Gloucester should be counted, irrespective of whether they are actually for retail
development and irrespective of the clear statements of Tesco and Costco which mean that it is unlikely in
the extreme that two of the commitments will ever be taken up.
We have set out, explained and then justified in detail Peel Group’s position with regard to the comparison
goods commitments in Gloucester in our Supplementary Hearing Statements dated 03/03/16 (Section 2)
and 18/03/15 (Section 2). We do not seek to repeat the evidence here except to highlight again that of
the two largest retail commitments: (1) If permission is granted for the alternative current applications,
Peel do not intend to develop out their retail commitment for the redevelopment of the cinema (4,207sq m
net) in the next 5 years; and (2) Tesco’s Chief Executive has confirmed that they will not be redeveloping
WYG, Ropemaker Court, 11-12 Lower Park Row, Bristol, BS1 5BN
Tel: +44 (0)117 925 4393 Fax: +44 (0)117 925 4239 Email: bristol.planning@wyg.com
Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy Examination
27 April 2016
Page 2
their Tesco Extra Store (4,263sq m net). This floorspace alone amounts to over 8,400sq m net of
comparison goods floorspace capacity which will not be met in the next 5 years.
It is noted that the JCS Authorities have for some reason included ‘pending planning applications’ in the
retail commitments schedule. It is important to note that the pending planning application for the cinema
retail warehouse conversion/extension (ref: 16/00005/FUL (not 15/01126/FUL as quoted by the JCS
authorities)) is an alternative scheme to the identified retail commitment retail warehouse scheme (ref:
11/01292/FUL).
It is noted that the Tewkesbury Outlet Centre planning application is identified and treated as a retail
commitment by the JCS Authorities despite them acknowledging the fact that the scheme only benefits
from a resolution to approve and that it has been referred to the Secretary of State. These facts were
pointed out by Paul Tucker QC at the April hearing session and it is disappointing that once more the
Authorities simply refuse to acknowledge the realities. It should also be noted that various parties have
written to the NPCU re-affirming detailed objections. For the avoidance of doubt a retail scheme can only
be treated as a commitment after it has been granted planning permission. Furthermore, as we have
noted previously in respect of the catchment area of the Gloucester Quays Outlet retail commitment (WYG
18 March 2016 Hearing Statement), due to the large catchment areas of factory outlet centres, only part of
the proposed Tewkesbury Outlet Centre turnover would be derived from within the JCS Authorities area.
So even if the Tewkesbury outlet were a commitment, which it is not, to subtract all of the proposed
floorspace from the identified floorspace capacity is entirely misguided.
Accordingly, the JCS authorities’ assertion that there are enough commitments in place to provide for
forecast floorspace needs for the first five years of the JCS (to 2021) is unsubstantiated and misleading.
The available evidence and information clearly demonstrates that none of the comparison goods retail
commitments in Gloucester will come forward in the next five years, if at all.
Gloucester Strategic Retail Sites (Potential Retail Supply)
At the hearing session on the 05 April 2016 the Inspector requested the JCS Authorities to provide clarity
on their suggested strategic retail sites. It is noted that the JCS Authorities are now referring to these sites
as “in-centre sites that have the potential to provide retail floorspace” which erroneously recasts the
Inspectors invitation.
No reasoning is given by the JCS Authorities as to why they have provided information on non-strategic
retail sites which on their own evidence are only capable of providing a small level of comparison goods
floorspace. Of particular note Kings Quarter (now a leisure led scheme), Eastgate Shopping Centre (a
minor internal rearrangement/ change of use at first floor level) and Greater Blackfriars (a residential led
redevelopment scheme) are all non strategic retail sites but inexplicably continue to be relied upon by the
JCS authorities.
Kings Quarter
It is disappointing to see that, despite the Inspector specifically requesting clarity on strategic retail sites,
the JCS authorities have failed to provide obviously important information on this site. In particular it is
noted that the JCS Authorities have seemingly omitted to inform the Inspector of Gloucester City Council’s
Cabinet resolution last month to terminate its contract with Stanhope unless Stanhope fulfilled its
contractual obligation to submit a planning application for the Kings Quarter redevelopment scheme by
26th March 2016. No such application was lodged and the same resolution declined to afford Stanhope any
further extension of time for its submission. This information has only been provided to Peel via a Freedom
of Information request, since the April hearing session. Therefore, for any revised project, which will in any
event not be a retail-led scheme, there will be a need to appoint a new development partner (which may or
may not be Stanhope) after a lawful procurement process. This is unlikely to be done quickly.
2
Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy Examination
27 April 2016
Page 3
The recast redevelopment of Kings Quarter beyond the new bus station is therefore at the earliest possible
stage of what is likely to be a lengthy process. There is no adopted policy underpinning the project, no
planning permission and now no development partner
It is noted that the JCS authorities Retail Note now provides even less clarity on the extent of comparison
goods floorspace sought within redevelopment of Kings Quarter than had been previously provided. No
timescales or retail (convenience or comparison goods) floorspace figures are provided. Indeed it also
does not fully accord with Gloucester City Council’s position statement issued on the 3rd March 2016
(Appendix 1 of WYG 18th March 2016 Hearing Statement).
What is clear from Gloucester City Council’s 3rd March position statement, as stated above, is that the
potential redevelopment of Kings Quarter will no longer be retail led. Only a limited amount of retail space
will ever be delivered, which will comprise the relocation of the Eastgate Shopping Centre market and the
relocation of existing retailers, including the Tesco Express convenience store. Accordingly, it is clear,
based on Gloucester City Council’s own position statement, that Kings Quarter is no longer a strategic retail
site.
In the absence of a development partner it is very unlikely, and there is no evidence to support a differing
view, that the redevelopment of the site will be completed within the next 5 years.
Land adjacent to Eastgate Shopping Centre
The JCS authorities identify that the redevelopment of this site could come forward in the next 5 years. No
timetable or details to support this statement and to provide clarity are provided by the JCS authorities. It
is noted that this timescale is now different to that previously stated by the JCS authorities just 4 months
ago (December 2015 JCS Retail Topic Paper (EXAM 136B)). No explanation is given for the change in
timescales.
As acknowledged by the JCS authorities the site comprises the former bowling green and existing indoor
market. The redevelopment of this site is therefore dependent on the relocation of the market to the
potential Kings Quarter redevelopment scheme. As noted earlier the JCS authorities do not provide any
timescales for the delivery of the Kings Quarter redevelopment. We have identified that in the absence of
a development partner or any scheme, Kings Quarter is very unlikely to come forward within the next 5
years. This is ignoring the fact that there are no scheme drawings/plans for its redevelopment, no Council
developer partner, and the significant constraints with regard to archaeology and Scheduled Ancient
Monuments. . It is therefore difficult to understand the JCS Authorities position that the redevelopment of
this Eastgate Shopping Centre site could be delivered within the next 5 years
It is noted that the JCS Authorities now identify that the site could accommodate up to 5,000sq m gross
retail floorspace. The JCS authorities previously identified that the site could accommodate up to 4,000sq
m gross retail floorspace (EXAM 199 – JCS authorities confirmed at the retail hearing session that the
floorspace figures quoted at paragraph 6.9 were wrongly quoted as gross not net). No clarification on the
significant change in floorspace figures is provided nor has any clarification or information been provided
on the quantum of net comparison goods floorspace. Reference is made to a “previous Masterplan” but
the JCS authorities have not included the document in their submission.
Eastgate Shopping Centre
Still no information is provided by the JCS authorities to demonstrate how the comparison goods floorspace
could be accommodated/delivered within the existing shopping centre.
Notwithstanding the above, the quantum of comparison goods floorspace suggested by the JCS for this site
is minimal and is not of a level which is of a strategic nature.
3
Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy Examination
27 April 2016
Page 4
Greater Blackfriars
The JCS Authorities state that the site could accommodate approximately 3,200sq m net retail floorspace.
No clarification is provided with regard to how this can be delivered and what proportion of this retail
floorspace is likely to be for comparison goods floorspace. In addition no site plans showing the areas
where this amount of floorspace could be achieved or potential illustrative scheme drawings are provided.
This is all the more concerning because the Masterplan information which is in the public domain states in
very clear terms that this scheme will be a residential led redevelopment with a modest amount of retail
space.
In terms of timescales for delivering the retail floorspace it is noted the JCS authorities state that the site
will not come forward until after 2026 (10 years). Just 4 months ago, the JCS authorities identified a
different timescale (December 2015 JCS Retail Topic Paper (EXAM 136B)) whereby they indicated a
timescale of 0-5 and 5-10 years. Whilst the JCS authorities latest suggested timescales are likely to be
more realistic (albeit no information is provided to enable Peel to confirm whether any retail floorspace is
deliverable) no explanation or clarification is provided for this sudden change in timescales.
Gloucester Primary Shopping Area & Retail Frontages
The JCS authorities set out a proposed Primary Shopping Area (PSA), Primary Shopping Frontage (PSF),
and Secondary Shopping Frontage (SSF) at Appendix 2.
It is noted that whilst a plan is provided the JCS authorities have chosen to ignore the Inspectors clear
conclusions that the PSA, PSF and SSF for Gloucester is required to be included in the JCS.
The JCS authorities state in their Retail Note that the PSA, PSF and SSF plan “will be progressed further
through Stage 3 of the Gloucester City Plan”.
Notwithstanding the above we provide comments on the proposed PSA, PSF and SSF below.
The extent of the proposed PSA appears reasonable. In terms of the PSF and SSF whilst these are now
correctly identified as frontages they are still also shown as shaded areas. The shading is not included in
the key and no explanation is provided in the JCS Retail Note as to why it remains on the plan. It is
considered that the shading is unnecessary and should be removed.
It is also noted that the PSF for Eastgate Shopping Centre (units to south of the Gate streets cross roads)
is drawn incorrectly. The plan identifies that frontage to the rear (south and south west) of the shopping
centre, where there is no frontage, is PSF. The plan also excludes frontages within the shopping centre
which should be identified as PSF. Finally, it is also noted that retail units on the south eastern side of
Kings Square are not included within either the PSF or SSF. It is considered that the frontage of these
units should be identified as PSF.
Subject to the JCS authorities making the above amendments Peel Group is agreeable to the proposed PSA
and retail frontages for Gloucester.
Concluding Remarks
We trust the above is helpful and provides further clarification to the Inspector on the JCS retail matters.
It is clear, based on the available evidence, that the JCS authorities have no strategic retail sites to meet
even their own identified significant comparison goods retail needs for Gloucester (even assuming a
constant market share).
4
Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy Examination
27 April 2016
Page 5
Unless the JCS plans appropriately for the strategic retail needs of Gloucester, any opportunistic developer
and/or retailers will be able to make planning applications on sites further out of centre than the Peel
Centre, safe in the knowledge there are no available sites and therefore pass the sequential test. If the
Peel Centre, a centrally located retail park where linked trips currently take place with the PSA, is allocated
as a strategic retail site then it will enable the JCS authorities to require applicants for proposals further out
of centre to demonstrate why their proposals cannot be accommodated on the centrally located and
allocated Peel Centre site, which is both well connected with the PSA and accessible.
At the very least the plan is plainly deficient in its approach to comparison retail floorspace and the
absence of identified strategic sites and should not be found to be sound therefore.
In short, allocating the Peel Centre site as Peel requests will provide Gloucester City Council with the means
of ensuring that future retail development which is necessary to meet identified retail needs, is located as
centrally as possible.
Should you require any further information/clarification please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Tristan Hutton
Director
Cc
JCS Authorities
5