APPENDIX
RETAIL ASSESSMENT TAKEN FROM THE ORIGINAL COMMITTEE REPORT
COMMENTING UPON THE SUPPORTING THE FIRST APPLICATION
(RESUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION).
Principle of Development/ Retail Policy and ImpactThe application site is not within a designated centre in the Blackpool Local Plan and is therefore
properly classified as ‘out of centre’ for retail planning purposes. The applicants claim the site can
be regarded as 'edge of centre', although in other correspondence they state that it is not within a
designated centre, The proposed site is neither within or edge of centre. Government Planning
Policy Statement 6 (PPS6) 'Planning for Town Centres' refers to edge of centre being within 300
metres of the retail core of a town centre, a designation applied to the main shopping core of a
town centre not to local centres. The Farm Foods proposal was itself acknowledged to be out of
centre.
This out of centre site lies approximately 770 m from the Blackpool Town Centre boundary and
around 1km from the primary retail core. It lies some 520 m from the Talbot Gateway site; 500m
from the Whitegate Drive District Centre; approximately 570 m south west of Layton District
Centre; 100 m and 200m south of two local centres on Talbot Road; 450m from Layton Local
Centre; and 450 m from the designated shopping centre at Caunce Street. The retail strategy and
policies of the Local Plan seek to protect these centres and enhance them. Strong centres have a
key role in underpinning balanced and healthy communities and are important in promoting
sustainable patterns of development.
Being located out of centre the applicants are required to address the Governments' Planning
Policy Statement 6 'Planning for Town Centres' and demonstrate a need (both quantitative and
qualitative) for the proposal, the appropriateness of scale; the sequential test; accessibility and
impact. The key policies in the Local Plan, which embrace this national guidance, are Policies
BH12 and BH16.

Quantitative Assessment
The quantitative assessment set out in the Planning and Retail Statement has relied heavily on
the work undertaken by Turley Associates with respect to the Farm Foods store located across
Devonshire Road. Farm Foods was approved as part of a mixed use development, which also
comprises of 43 ‘extra care’ residential units and approved on 6 November 2006.
In considering the Farm Foods application, there was considerable concern over the retail
element on the grounds that there is a major food store proposed as part of the Talbot Gateway
development, a key regeneration opportunity identified in the Local Plan and there was
considerable concern that approval of the retail element of the mixed use scheme would set a
damaging precedent particularly bearing in mind other vacant car showrooms in Blackpool.
However, on this occasion it was considered that the regeneration benefit of the ‘extra-care’
housing, which supports objectives in the Talbot and Brunswick Planning Guidance adopted June
2006, provided overriding beneficial considerations which outweighed retail policy in the Local
Plan. The Farm Foods/Windmill Housing was therefore approved in exceptional circumstances on
the basis of other material considerations outweighing adopted retail policy.
The assessment of need for the Lidl proposal is based on a catchment area, which reflects that of
the Farm Foods need assessment. Concern is raised as to the appropriateness of this catchment
for the Lidl proposal. It should be noted that concerns were raised over the extent of the Farm
Foods catchment in the first instance. With respect to the Lidl proposal it is considered more
appropriate to establish the catchment of the proposed store by providing information on the
current catchment's of existing Lidl stores in Anchorsholme and Ansdell Road. In addition it would
appear as currently proposed there would be considerable overlap of catchment's of the proposed
and existing Lidl stores.
The quantitative analysis put forward in the Statement is not considered to be robust, not only in
terms of the defined catchment but also in terms of the various assumptions that have been made
including the turn over of existing stores, the available surplus expenditure, sales density and
inflow expenditure. In addition with respect to commitments that have been taken into account in
the quantitative assessment. It is considered that the commitment in the Local Plan to a major
foodstore on the Talbot Gateway site, which is underpinned by the publication of Supplementary
Planning Guidance (October 2006) should be included. This Local Plan allocation is supported by
evidence set out in the Blackpool Shopping Study 2004. The Talbot Gateway store is vital to
effect a fundamental change in promoting more sustainable local food shopping patterns in the
Borough and fulfilling the quantitative and qualitative deficiencies identified in the 2004 Study.
The cumulative effect of allowing out of centre food retail development would be to diminish the
viability of the proposed Talbot Gateway major foodstore. It would also impact on investment and
development in district and local centres.

Qualitative Assessment
In qualitative terms a case for the Lidl store to be provided in this location has not been proven
particularly given the proximity of the site to existing facilities and to the proposed food superstore
at Talbot Gateway. Existing facilities include Farm Foods on Devonshire Road, Local Centres on
Talbot Road containing a Spar and a Premier Essential Express; Layton Local Centre, which
contains a Somerfield and the Caunce Street Local Shopping Centre, which contains a Tesco
Express Store. The applicant relies heavily upon the proposed Lidl providing lower priced food in
an area of low incomes and high deprivation. Farm Foods already itself provides competitively
priced food for the same area.
The proposal has to be seen in the wider context of the detrimental impact that this and similar out
of centre development will have on the quality and accessibility of retail facilities over the wider
area and on wider sustainable development objectives. Such development, which if successful is
expected to lead to further proposed retail development on the site, will be at the expense of
provision within centres. It is likely to increase reliance on the private car, traffic levels, congestion
and vehicle emissions. As Local Planning Authority the Council has wider responsibilities and a
duty to all its residents. The proposal must be viewed in terms of these wider impacts.
In view of the above therefore a case for need both in quantitative and qualitative terms has not
been established

Sequential Test
PPS6 also states that the relevant centres in which to search for sites will depend upon ‘the
nature and scale of the development and the catchment that the development seeks to serve'.
Notwithstanding the concern raised over the proposed Lidl catchment, it is incumbent on the
applicant to search for sites in the catchment area.
Taking into account the requirements of PPS6, the applicants approach to the sequential test is
considered inadequate. A store of the proposed size is appropriate in the first instance within a
district centre role and sites/buildings within or adjacent to such centres should be considered. In
addition sites within or on the edge of local centres should also be considered. There are two
other Lidl stores within Blackpool are associated with District Centres namely Anchorsholme and
Ansdell Road, although the agents state Lidl operate several stores already in Blackpool,
reference is also made in the submission to sites outside the area. Whilst the store is presented
as an essentially local facility the proposal incorporates a 75 space car park, the maximum
allowed under current standards, which suggests it will serve much more than just local needs.
PPS6 also promotes the improvement to existing centres in deprived areas through the Local
Development Framework and PPS6 also seeks to remedy deficiencies in such areas through the
strengthening of existing centres. There is nothing in PPS6 to suggest that applications in
deprived areas can forego policy tests. However the applicants have only considered two other
possible sites, namely Talbot Gateway and Hounds Hill.
Regarding Talbot Gateway the applicants have dismissed this site on the grounds that the site is
not available in a reasonable time period. This conclusion is challenged. It is considered that
there is a realistic prospect that the site will come forward in a reasonable time scale. A
reasonable time period for the availability of sites has been established through the planning
appeals procedure as 5 years. Phase 1 of the Talbot Gateway development which includes retail
development is due to be completed during 2010 three years hence. The precise mix of
development on the site has yet to be determined and the Local Plan policy does not preclude
food retail development other than the superstore and Lidl themselves point to stores which exist
alongside major food superstores.

Conclusion on Principle, Retail Impact and Policy
The applicants statistical assessment is not sufficiently robust to place any reliance upon the
impact assessment results. Contrary to the applicants assertions the submitted information has
been properly assessed with regards to current national and local planning policy and does not
belittle the applicants experience in these types of developments. Nor are the re-location
ambitions of the current occupants of the site relevant to the Council's determination of the
application. Having regard to the above it is concluded that:
The proposed development is contrary to Local Plan Policies BH12, BH13, BH14 and BH16;



A need for the proposal in both quantitative and qualitative terms has not been
demonstrated through robust analysis;
The sequential assessment is inadequate;
The approval of out of centre retail development without any overriding justification will
undermine investment and development that is crucial to the vitality and viability of town,
district and local centres including the proposed Talbot Gateway development.
It therefore follows that the principle of developing a retail store in this location is not accepted on
the basis of the application submission.