Retail Planning Policy in the United Kingdom (UK)
Anne Findlay and Leigh Sparks, Institute for Retail Studies, University of Stirling, Scotland, UK
Email: a.m.findlay@stir.ac.uk and Leigh.Sparks@stir.ac.uk
Website: http://www.stir.ac.uk/management/research/irs/
1st October 2013
1
Retail Planning Policy in the United Kingdom (UK)1
This paper reviews retail planning policy in the UK, focusing on why retail planning has developed in
the way that it has, the key influences on retail planning and the intentions of current policies. First
we consider the role of regulation in the UK context. Second we outline the plan making process.
The third section reviews the ‘town centres first’ policy in the UK, which has been the mainstay of
retail planning in recent years. A final section draws conclusions about retail planning in a UK
context.
Section 1 The case for retail regulation
Retailing has always been the subject of regulations and interventions on operating practices. In the
last sixty years however this activity has expanded in volume and breadth. When retailing was
focused on essentially small units located in central areas and local high streets, the main concerns
were at store level. As a hierarchy of urban and retail centres became identified and incorporated in
planning thinking, so regulation became concerned with the allocation of shops to discernible
locations in this urban and/or retail hierarchy of centres (Smailes 1944, Smith 1968, Hall et al. 2001).
The UK is a small but densely populated set of islands, thus intervention was deemed necessary to
ensure that the scarce resource of land was used properly. There was also a concern to preserve
town centres as focal points to ensure that retailing was located ‘sensibly’. Land-use planning thus
became the main regulatory tool, operated at the level of the local authority2 under the 1947 Town
and Country Planning Act. However as new forms of retailing (e.g. out-of-town hypermarkets and
new regional shopping centres) were proposed from the 1960s and the 1970s so new forms of
locational regulation were introduced. Specialist national advice and guidance, on for example large
scale out-of-town retail format development, has been introduced to assist local authorities in their
planning task and in dealing with applications for ‘new’ retail formats.
Boddewyn and Hollander (1972) stated that intervention into retail markets had five main aims:
•
To protect small retailers
•
To ensure price stability
1
The United Kingdom is made up of Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales) and Northern Ireland. Planning
policy is a devolved matter to the four countries. Whilst there are differences in emphases between say
England and Scotland, and variations in timing of legislation, the broad tendencies in retail planning policy are
the same (currently). As such we refer here to the UK, recognising there are nuanced differences, but believing
the overall approach is the same across the constituent components of the UK.
2
National government in planning terms operates at the level of the four countries in the UK. Each country has
within it at least one tier of local government, at which the detail of retail planning policy is delivered.
Businesses would deal with local authorities in terms of development.
2
•
To ensure the efficiency of retailing
•
For the protection of consumers
•
For environmental reasons.
Of these, the first two have not been to the fore in the UK. Thorpe (1974) proposed explicitly for the
UK that there were four reasons behind intervening in retailing through land-use planning:
•
The retail case – in order not to have too many shops and to have an optimum mix of shops
at various levels in the hierarchy
•
The urban case – town centre vitality is necessary and there is a need to manage the
morphology of urban areas
•
For social planning – equity in shopping for disadvantaged groups is an aim
•
The environmental case – to minimise the environmental (in a land use sense not in a 21st
century sustainability sense) impact of new development and to separate land uses which
are incompatible with each other.
These reasons became codified (Guy 1980) as intervention to ensure that the market functions
effectively, to ensure that the population is served equitably and to correct any other harmful
effects of the market. The current National Planning Policy Framework retains three planning goals –
economic, social and environmental goals (Department of Communities and Local Government
2012). The belief is that if retailers are left to their own devices, and allowed to open shops of
varying formats wherever they wish, then the outcomes will not be suitable for the population as a
whole or for the currently existing hierarchy of centres. Such a view, based on an examination of
trends in the United States (which have generally predated trends in the UK) saw restrictions
imposed from the 1960s and 1970s on newer forms of retailing and retail locations such as out-oftown regional shopping centres, food hypermarkets and non-food retail warehouse parks.
The brief review above indicates that there are a number of tensions which exist in the process of
making UK retail planning policy:
Efficiency and Equity: There is always potential tension between the social and economic goals in a
country expressed as a tension between efficiency or productivity and equity. New forms of retailing
may be more efficient or have higher levels of productivity. Denying their development holds back
local, corporate and national levels of productivity. On the other hand concerns that allowing
modern retailing to out-compete existing retailing in existing locations runs the risk of damaging
3
social cohesion and the ability of particular consumer groups to access suitable shopping facilities
(e.g. Bennison and Davies 1980, Bromley and Thomas 1995, Guy 2004).
New and Existing Locations: Restrictions on new locations for retail development run the risk of
fossilising the existing retail structure and/or the retail or urban hierarchy. With an inability to invest
in new sites and in effect protection offered to existing locations and retailers, so inefficiencies may
be preserved. In such a situation, with a changing consumer base with new demands and patterns of
behaviours and particularly rapid increases in access, the hierarchy remains the focus, even if it is
outmoded in terms of consumer behaviour patterns or the physical infrastructure itself (e.g. Dawson
and Sparks 1986, Guy 2007).
Local and National Scales of Intervention: Regulation, such as land-use planning structures and
processes, handed the decision making over retail locations and formats to national and local
planners and away from those serving the customer (the retailer). This raises the question of who
best judges the provision of such consumer facilities? At the same time tensions have arisen over the
appropriate level of the decision making within government (national or local) and over whether
there is a need for national consistency in policy or whether local flexibility best suits local situations
(e.g. Davies 1984, 2004, Guy 2012).
Innovation and Tradition: Retailers would argue that intervention mitigates against the most
successful retailers as it constrains innovative practices. Innovative and productive retailers are
constrained and retailers who may not be as effective in economic terms are protected. There could
be seen to be more penalties for success and more rewards for mediocrity and lack of change and
investment than there are penalties for lack of improvement (e.g. Retail Strategy Group 2004, Wood
et al. 2006, Guy and Bennison 2007).
Land-use Retail Planning and Business Regulation: Land-use planning has at its heart a concern with
land use and not the user of the land. However as retailers become differentially successful, even
dominant (Burt and Sparks 2003), so regulators become concerned over monopoly positions and
power. Tension thus develops between land-use planning and business outcomes. This has seen the
development of stronger competition and developmental (market store, fascia control) policy and its
encroachment into land-use planning spheres (e.g. Hughes et al 2009).
4
These tensions emerged strongly in the 1970s as new forms of retailing began to be proposed and as
market concentration and competition effects grew. They have continued to resonate since, and
continue to permeate the debate over retail planning and retail regulation (Davies 1984, 2004,
Dawson 1980, 1983, Guy 1980, 1994, 2007a, Marsden and Wrigley 1996).
Section 2 The making of retail planning policy
Land use planning is regulated under the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act as modified by the
Planning and Compulsory Purchases Act 2004. This applies to England, with slightly different, but
broadly similar approaches in the rest of the United Kingdom. The framework is based around
planning and decision making at national guidance and local plan making. Prior to 2012 regional
planning also operated. Local authorities have most of the responsibility for retail applications and
developments unless they are of significant size, when they get ‘called in’ to national level decision
making. Proposals which are turned down can be taken through an appeal process. Local decisions
can be overturned at the appeals process. The basic building blocks are the local and regional plans,
setting out land-use and development for their areas. These plans have to take account of national
guidance.
Guidance on national dimensions of policy is issued periodically as planning policy guidance,
statements or frameworks. Planning issues are the subject of parliamentary question, statements
and debate (e.g. House of Commons, 2010a, 2010b, 2012a, 2012b), and on occasion targeted
investigation by Parliamentary Select Committees. Ministerial statements are used to make minor
amendments to retail planning policy. Usually the process to substantively change policy will begin
with an evaluation of the previous policy which will take into consideration its effectiveness or
otherwise (CB Hillier Parker 2004a, 2004b). Civil servants with planning experience will then work on
redrafting policy so as to meet current government objectives and to ensure that it will be possible
to implement the policy effectively. The draft of the new policy will then be made available for
public consultation. At this point experts, members of the public, local authorities, interested parties
such as retailers, trade bodies and lobbyists will be able to submit their comments. These will then
be considered and a further draft drawn up for approval. Once it is approved it becomes part of
official planning guidance and local authorities are expected to adhere to the guidelines in their plan
making and decision making about applications for development. The policies are intended as
guidance. Accompanying guidance on implementation will be published separately from the policy
statements (e.g. DCLG 2004). The government department responsible for planning may also publish
5
additional material which offers best practice examples (DCLG 2009b). Local authorities have some
scope to ensure that the needs of localities are considered.
Whilst most retailers may not like regulation, for the most part they recognise that some regulation
is necessary. The role of regulation in retail planning is not to restrict competition, preserve existing
commercial interests, or make decisions on any basis apart from the merits of the application in
terms of required assessment and existing local plans.
Retail planning policy sits alongside a wider policy framework of regulatory controls. In respect of
retailing there has been particular concern from other government departments about the
increasing market dominance of some of the UK’s major retailers. These concerns have been largely
couched in terms of competitive impacts of larger multiple retailers on smaller independent retailers
operating from ‘small shops’ and on impacts on suppliers and producers of products, particularly in
the food sector (e.g. Clarke 2000, Clarke et al. 2002). In the early 1980s the decline of the small
shop/independent retailer and the relationships between larger retailers and suppliers was
investigated by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC 1981) and later on several
occasions by the Competition Commission (Competition Commission 2000, 2006, 2008). The latest
inquiry began to encroach on retail planning in its recommendations (focusing on the user of land
not land-use), but in practice these particular recommendations have never been implemented. At
the same time as there is ‘social’ concern over impact, others view productivity as more important
and see planning as a drag on productivity growth (e.g. Cheshire et al 2012, Griffith and Harmgart
2012).
Section 3 Town Centres First
Planning policy has changed over time, reflecting changing government priorities. In the 1970s
successive policy statements stressed the need to locate new retail developments in existing retail
centres. By the mid-1980s the policy was relaxed allowing more out of town and off centre
developments. New guidance in 1988 reflected a government view that it is not the role of the
planning system to inhibit commercial competition or to preserve existing interests. However by
1993 guidance was introduced aimed at sustaining and enhancing the vitality and viability of town
centres by again focusing retail development in such centres. This was the start of the current ‘town
centres first’ policy.
6
Guy (2007a) identifies four phases in retail land use planning and regulation in the UK:
•
1960s/1970s - early days of retail regulation with initial resistance to new retail forms
•
1980s - a loosening up of regulation to a more market led approach allowing an expansion of
new retail forms
•
1990s - the gradual tightening up of policy as effects on town centres became more
noticeable
•
2000s - the continuation of the town centres first policy which has redirected off-centre
developments and focused attention back into town centres.
As can be noted from the brief policy descriptions of these phases, policy has tended to switch
between restrictions on new forms of development to encouragement of such developments and
then back to greater restriction. The story of retail planning in the UK is thus not one of a maturing
system of retail planning, but rather a compromise between the tensions noted earlier and changing
economic and social demands. Changes to land use policy have been driven essentially by the
outcomes of debates at particular times over the social versus the economic requirements from
retailing and the question of the degree of acceptable impact on existing retailers and existing
centres (Guy 1998b, Guy and Bennison 2002).
Table 1 summarises retail policy guidance/statements and frameworks over the period 1993-2013.
The context of policy has changed over time with different governments in power and differing
economic situations. Recession tends to stimulate a pro-development stance and a cut in regulation
to encourage development. Equally a Labour government tends to engage in greater controls over
the private sector than a Conservative one. Over the last ten years retail planning has been
incorporated increasingly into economic planning policy, although the link with regeneration and
thus the social aspects of retailing were an important theme in the years of the Labour government
of the early 2000s (Business in the Community 2007, Social Exclusion Unit 2001).
Key to the planning process has been a process known as the ‘Sequential Approach’. The ‘town
centre first’ policy directs retail development to town centres by adopting a sequential approach or
test (CB Hillier Parker 2002). Proposed developments have to show a lack of scope for them in town
centres, then adjacent to town centres, then edge of town centres, before finally considering out of
town sites as a last resort. This process was introduced in Planning Policy Guidance 6 and remains
key to judging development proposals today. Initially it was combined with a ‘Need Test’. However
demands to ensure that planning policy delivers economic growth and prosperity, linked planning
and productivity (Barker 2006). The Barker Review concluded that land-use planning should not be
assessed on the basis of need as this undermined competition and impaired growth. In 2009 a new
7
planning policy statement, Planning Policy Statement 4, dropped the ‘need test’, although not
without considerable debate (DCLG 2009c, Guy 2007b).
Since Planning Policy Statement 4 the country has been in a recession. This has had several impacts
on retail planning policy. First it has encouraged a more pro-development approach reflected in the
new 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG 2012). Secondly it has drawn greater attention
to the requirements of town centres where the effects of recession and wider structural changes are
visible in the numbers of empty shops and buildings. More importantly there is a growing
recognition that towns are important as economic drivers and social places. There has seen
increased interest in towns by the government department responsible for business and developing
initiatives such as Business Improvement Districts (ATCM 2002). The idea that towns should be
approached from a business perspective has gone some way towards bringing a new perspective on
productivity issues although towns also fulfil sustainable and equity goals. The draft versions of the
National Planning Policy Framework did not prioritise the town centres first policy in the way that it
emerged in the final document (House of Commons, Communities and Local Government
Committee 2011). It was only the attention drawn to the problems of high streets, in part through a
government commissioned review of high streets (Portas 2011) that resulted in a decision that the
town centres first policy needed to be strengthened. The National Planning Policy Framework
strategically places town centres at the heart of economic development (Table 2). Arguably it
repositions retail planning assigning it to place making and enhancing the economic prosperity of
towns. It is also situated within a government proposal to increase localism, thus shifting some of
the balance to a more local level. Localism requires local participation in plan making which define
local development priorities.
How successful has the town centres first policy been? Figure 1 shows mixed success in directing
new developments towards town centre locations. The decline in retail warehouse parks is part of
that success (Guy 1998). Some grocery retailers have adapted new formats which fit into town
centres (e.g. Express and Metro type stores) (Guy 2002, Guy and Bennison 2007, Wood et al. 2006,
Sparks 2011). Large out of town grocery developments are still taking place as sequential sites are
not always available. However in terms of shopping centres the significance of in town locations over
out of town locations is clear. Of course high streets continue to be impacted by existing levels of
out of town retailing. There still remain many cases where the sequential approach will not show
potential town centre sites as being available. Thus, whilst retail planning and the town centres first
policy is a necessary requirement for the well-being of town centres it is not in itself sufficient. Guy’s
(2010) analysis of Cardiff over 20 years shows this clearly.
8
Retail planning policy and the town centres first approach have had to contend not only with the
recession, but also with other major structural changes. The decentralisation of retailing is but one
component of a massive decentralisation of many aspects of economic, social and civic life. Town
centres are not the hubs for many people. Secondly this decentralisation has not been accompanied
by a re-orientation or redevelopment of the vacated space. Thirdly, the rise of the internet and
mobile shopping, plus other consumer behaviour changes have transformed our use of space. The
irony of a land-use planning policy in a virtual world is inescapable.
The outcome of all these factors is a crisis in town centres and high streets as witnessed by various
reports and investigations (e.g. Portas 2011, Grimsey 2013, Scottish Government 2013). All seek to
re-invent the high street and town centre and are concerned with adjusting local and national
policies to support these endeavours. To what extent the solution is retail based as opposed to
broader-based remains the subject of debate. Retail planning however is not likely to remain
unchanged as these waves sweep through the system, not least because many large-format retailers
are now questioning the basis of these formats and cutting capital plans. The policy is in danger of
being out-moded, despite its good intentions.
Section 4 Conclusions
Retailing does not operate in a vacuum and is not neutral in its effects. Retailers by their operational
practices affect a range of organizations and individuals. As retailing has matured as a sector and
developed new forms of operation (Dawson 2001) so there has been increasing interest from
regulators about the actions and impacts on diverse groups. Regulation however is inevitably an
intervention in performance and as such needs to be undertaken for particular reasons and with
particular aims and outcomes in mind.
In the UK the aims for regulation and intervention have not always been clear, being more implicit
than explicit. Tensions have developed between intervention for social or economic reasons and
over the best judges of competition and competitive outcomes. These tensions continue to play out
today, as debates over power, competition and access remain current. The question that is perhaps
too infrequently asked is “what form of retailing do we want for whom?” Too often the answer is
assumed, but consumers are rarely considered and often taken for granted by regulators, the rise of
internet based behaviours being a prime example of this. Over privileging social concerns leads to an
inefficient, under-invested retail structure, that is less retailer and more producer oriented. Focused
on town centres and high streets it could make consumers undertake more frequent shopping trips
to more congested or busy locations. It may however be more sustainable. Alternatively, focusing
9
only on economic aspects of retailing runs the risk of creating retail sprawl at, or in green belts, with
a dominance of large retailers operating American-sized retail sheds and/or internet fulfillment
centres. This is not a particularly attractive or inspiring proposition but might be (internally) efficient
and productive, and seems to satisfy the needs of many consumers ‘driven’ by utilitarian and pricefocused desires. Whilst these two propositions are extremes, intervention and regulation shape our
choices between them, at least in part. In pursuing any middle or compromise ground, we should
perhaps do it more clearly, identifying our aims and the degree of compromise acceptable in
obtaining retailing fit for the needs and wants of the 21st century and places consumers and citizens
can be proud of.
10
Table 1: Retail Planning Policy 1993-2013
Date
Title
Main aims
Influential
publications
1993
Planning Policy To sustain or enhance the vitality and
House of
Guidance 6;
viability of town centres which serve
Commons (1994),
Town Centres
the whole community and in particular Department of
and Retail
provide a focus for retail development the Environment
Development
where the proximity of competing
(1998),
businesses facilitates competition
Department of
which benefits consumers. To ensure
the Environment
the availability of a wide range of
(1994)
shopping opportunities to which
McKinsey Global
people have easy access and the
Institute (1998)
maintenance of an efficient and
innovative retail sector
2005
Planning Policy The government’s key objective for
Retail Strategy
Statement 6;
town centres is to promote their
Group (2004)
Planning for
vitality and viability by:
Town Centres
Planning for growth and development
of existing centres, by focusing
development in such centres and
encouraging a wide range of services
in a good environment, accessible to
all.
2009
Planning Policy To promote the vitality and viability of Barker (2006)
Statement
towns and other centres as important Competition
4:Planning for
places for communities and ensure
Commission
Sustainable
that they are economically successful
(2008)
Economic
recognising that they are important
AAPSG (2006)
Growth
drivers for regional, sub-regional and
local economies.
2012
National
Ensuring the vitality of town centres.
DCLG (2011)
Planning Policy Planning policies should be positive,
Portas (2011)
Framework;
promote competitive town centre
House of
Achieving
environments and set out policies for
Commons (2011)
Sustainable
the management and growth of
Development
centres over the plan period.
See also: Findlay and Sparks (2012a)
Tensions
Innovative
locations v
traditional
locations.
Equity or
efficiency.
Innovative
locations and
traditional
locations
Productivity v
equity.
Retail planning
v business
policy.
Small shops v
large shops.
National v
local. Physical
v virtual.
Economic v
social.
11
Table 2: National Planning Policy Framework: Section on Town Centres
Ensuring the vitality of town centres
Planning policies should be positive, promote competitive town centre environments and set out
policies for the management and growth of centres over the plan period. In drawing up Local Plans,
local planning authorities should:
•
recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support
their viability and vitality;
•
define a network and hierarchy of centres that is resilient to anticipated future economic
changes;
•
define the extent of town centres and primary shopping areas, based on a clear definition of
primary and secondary frontages in designated centres, and set policies that make clear
which uses will be permitted in such locations;
•
promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer
and which reflect the individuality of town centres;
•
retain and enhance existing markets and, where appropriate, re‑introduce or create new
ones, ensuring that markets remain attractive and competitive;
•
allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail, leisure, commercial,
office, tourism, cultural, community and residential development needed in town centres. It
is important that needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses are met in
full and are not compromised by limited site availability. Local planning authorities should
therefore undertake an assessment of the need to expand town centres to ensure a
sufficient supply of suitable sites;
•
allocate appropriate edge of centre sites for main town centre uses that are well connected
to the town centre where suitable and viable town centre sites are not available. If sufficient
edge of centre sites cannot be identified, set policies for meeting the identified needs in
other accessible locations that are well connected to the town centre;
•
set policies for the consideration of proposals for main town centre uses which cannot be
accommodated in or adjacent to town centres;
•
recognise that residential development can play an important role in ensuring the vitality of
centres and set out policies to encourage residential development on appropriate sites; and
•
where town centres are in decline, local planning authorities should plan positively for their
future to encourage economic activity.
12
Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town
centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local
Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then
in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be
considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be
given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning
authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale. When assessing
applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in
accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact
assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no
locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m).This should include assessment of:
•
the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private
investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and
•
the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer
choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the
application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five
years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is
made. Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant
adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused.
Source: Department of Communities and Local Government (2012)
13
Fig. 1 Retail Development under Town Centres First Policy
Retail Parks under Construction (million sq ft)
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
Out-of-town
1.5
1
0.5
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
0
Shopping centres under constriction (million sq ft)
12
10
8
6
Town Centre
4
2
Out-of-town
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
0
Grocery Outlets under Construction (Million sq ft)
3.5
3
2.5
2
Town Centre
1.5
Out-of-town
1
0.5
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
0
Source: CB Richard Ellis 2013a, 2013b, 2013c
14
References
APPSSG (2006) High Street Britain 2015, London, House of Commons, All Party Parliamentary Small
Shops Group.
ATCM (2002) Sustainable Funding for Town Centre Management, London: Association of Town
Centre Management.
Barker, K. (2006) Barker Review of Land Use Planning: final report - recommendations, Norwich:
HMSO. (Available online from www.barkerreviewofplanning.org.uk )
Bennison, D. and Davies, R.L. (1980) ‘The impact of town centres shopping schemes in Britain: their
impact on traditional retail environments’, Progress in Planning, 14 (1).
Boddewyn, J.J. and Hollander, S.C. (1972) Public Policy Toward Retailing, Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Bromley, R.D.F. and Thomas, C.J. (1995) ‘Small Town Shopping Decline: dependence and
inconvenience for the disadvantaged’, International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research, 5:433-55.
Burt,S.L. and Sparks, L (2003) ‘Power and competition in the UK retail grocery market’, British Journal
of Management, 14,3: 237-254.
Business in the Community (2007) Under-served Markets: Retail and Regeneration, London: Business
in the Community.
CB Hillier Parker (2002) The Sequential Approach to Retail Development, London: CBHP.
CB Hillier Parker and Cardiff University (2004a) Policy Evaluation of the Effectiveness of PPG6,
London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
CB Richard Ellis, University of Stirling and Colin Buchanan and Partners (2004b) Research Study on
the Effectiveness of NPPG8: Town Centres and Retailing, Report to the Scottish Executive
Development Department, Edinburgh: SEDD.
CB Richard Ellis (2013a) UK Shopping Centres in the Pipeline, London: CBRE.
CB Richard Ellis (2013b) UK Grocery Outlets in the Pipeline, London: CBRE
CB Richard Ellis (2013c) UK Retail Warehouse Parks in the Pipeline, London: CBRE.
Cheshire, P., Hilber, C and Kaplanis, I (2012) Land use regulation and productivity – land matters:
evidence from a supermarket chain. London School of Economics, IEB Working paper no
2012/15, May.
Clarke, I. (2000) ‘Retail power, competition and local consumer choice in the UK grocery sector’,
European Journal of Marketing, 34: 975-1002.
15
Competition Commission (2000) Supermarkets: A report on the supply of groceries from multiple
stores in the United Kingdom, London: TSO. Available at http://www.competitioncommission.org.uk/inquiries/completed/2000/index.htm
Competition Commission (2006) Groceries Market Investigation: Issues Statement. London: TSO.
Available at http://www.competitioncommission.org.uk/inquiries/ref2006/grocery/index.htm
Competition Commission (2008) Groceries Market Investigation: Provisional Decision on Remedies,
London: Competition Commission. Available at http://www.competition-commission.org.uk
Davies, R.L. (1984) Retail and Commercial Planning, Beckenham: Croom Helm.
Davies, R.L. (2004) ‘Planning Policy’, in Reynolds, J. and Cuthbertson, C. (eds) Retail Strategy: The
view from the bridge, Oxford: Elsevier, 78-95.
Dawson, J.A. and Sparks, L. (1986) ‘Issues for Planning of Retailing in Scotland’, Scottish Planning Law
and Practice, 18, 38-40.
Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (2011) Understanding High Street Performance, London:
Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. www.bis.gov.uk
Department of Communities and Local Government (2009a) PPS4 Impact Assessment, London:
Department of Communities and Local Government.
Department of Communities and Local Government (2009b) Looking after our Town Centres, London:
Communities and Local Government.
Department of Communities and Local Government (2009) Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for
Sustainable Economic Growth, London: TSO.
Department of Communities and Local Government (2012) High Streets at the Heart of our
Communities; the Government’s Response to the Mary Portas Review, London: Department of
Communities and Local Government. Available at
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/regeneration/portasreviewresponse
Department of Communities and Local Government (2012) National Planning Policy Framework,
London: Department of Communities and Local Government. Available at
http://www.gov.uk/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf
Department of the Environment (1994) Vital and Viable Town Centres. London, HMSO.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1998) The Impact of Large Foodstores
on Market Towns and Districts, London: HMSO.
Department of the Environment and Welsh Office (1993) Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 (Revised):
Town Centres and Retail Developments, London: HMSO.
Findlay A.M. and Sparks L. (2012a) Knowledge Base, London: National Retail Planning Forum
www.nrpf.org.uk
16
Findlay A.M. and Sparks L. (2012b) Publications on Retail Planning2011, London: National Retail
Planning Forum.
Griffith, R and Harmgart, H (2012) ‘Supermarkets competition in England and planning regulation’,
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 22, 1-25.
Grimsey, B. (2013) ‘The Grimsey Review: an alternative future for the high street’. Available at
www.vanishinghighstreet.com
Guy, C.M. (1980) Retail Location and Retail Planning in Britain, Farnborough: Gower.
Guy, C.M. (1998) ‘ “High street” retailing in off-centre retail parks: a review of the effectiveness of
land use planning policies’, Town Planning Review, 69: 291-313.
Guy, C.M. (2002) ‘Is retail planning policy effective? The case of very large store development in the
UK’, Planning Theory and Practice, 3: 319-30
Guy C.M. (2004) ‘Town centres first’, Town and Country Planning, 73(2): 48-50.
Guy, C.M. (2007a) Planning for Retail Development, Abingdon: Routledge.
Guy, C.M. (2007b) ‘Is “demonstration of need” necessary in retail planning policy?’ Regional Studies,
41, 131-137. Guy, C.M. (2007c) Who needs need? Town and Country Planning, 76(4), 111-2.
Guy, C.M. (2010) Development pressure and retail planning: a study of 20 year change in Cardiff, UK,
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 20, 1: 119-133.
Guy, C.M. (2012) ‘Exceptional sign-off’, Town and Country Planning 81(7/8): 311-313.
Guy, C.M. and Bennison, D. (2002) ‘Retail planning policy, superstore development and retailer
competition’, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 30: 431-4.
Guy, C.M. and Bennison, D. (2007) ‘Planning guidance and large store development in the UK: the
search for “flexibility”’, Environment and Planning A, 39, 945-964.
Hall, P., Marshall, S., and Lowe, M. (2001) ‘The Changing Urban Hierarchy in England and Wales,
1913-1998’, Regional Studies, 35, 775-808.
House of Commons (1994a) Fourth Report: Shopping Centres and their Future: Minutes of Evidence,
London: HMSO.
House of Commons (1994b) Fourth Report: Shopping centres Vol. II, London: HMSO.
House of Commons (2010a) ‘Urban supermarkets’, Hansard 13th Sep. Available at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk
House of Commons (2010b) ‘Local high streets’, Hansard 21st Dec. Available at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk
House of Commons (2012a) ‘Future of town centres and high streets’, Hansard 17th Jan. Available at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk
17
House of Commons (2012b) Town Centres, Planning and Supermarkets, London: House of Commons.
Available at http://www.parliament.uk/briefing papers/sn01106
House of Commons (2011) Localism Bill, London: House of Commons. Available at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk
House of Commons, Communities and Local Government Committee (2009) Tenth Report. Need and
Impact: Planning for Town Centres, London: House of Commons.
House of Commons, Communities and Local Government Committee (2011) The National Planning
Policy Framework, London: TSO. Available at
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppf
Hughes, R., Hallsworth, A. and Clarke, G. (2009) ‘Testing the effectiveness of the proposed UK
‘competition test’’, Service Industries Journal, 29: 569-590.
McKinsey Global Institute (1998) Driving Productivity and Growth in the UK Economy, Washington:
McKinsey and Co.
Marsden, T. and Wrigley, N. (2006) ‘Retailing, the food system and the regulatory state, in: Wrigley,
N. and Lowe, M. Retailing, Consumption and Capital: Towards the New Retail Geography,
London: Longman, 33-47.
Monopolies and Mergers Commission (1981) Discounts to Retailers, London, HMSO.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) Planning policy statement 6. Planning for town centres,
London: ODPM.
Portas, M. (2011) The Portas Review: An Independent Review into the Future of our High Streets,
London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Available at http://www.bis.gov.uk
Retail Strategy Group (2004) Driving Change, London, Department of Trade and Industry. Available
at http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file10993.pdf
Scottish Government (2013) National Review of Town Centres External Advisory Group Report –
Community
and
Enterprise
in
Scotland’s
Town
Centres.
Available
at
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/regeneration/town-centres/review
Smailes, A.E. (1944) ‘The Urban Hierarchy in England and Wales’, Geography, 29, 41-51.
Smith, R.D.P. (1968) ‘The Changing Urban Hierarchy’, Regional Studies, 2, 1-19.
Social exclusion Unit (2001) A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal: National Strategy
Action Plan, London: Stationery Office.
Sparks, L. (2011) ‘Settling for second best: reflections on the tenth anniversary of Wal-Mart’s entry
to the UK’, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 39(2): 114-129.
Thorpe, D. (1974) ‘Locating Retail Outlets’ in Thorpe D. (ed) Research into Retailing and Distribution,
Farnborough, Saxon House.
18
Wood, S., Lowe, M. and Wrigley, N. (2006) ‘Life after PPG6: recent food retailer responses to
planning regulation tightening’, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research, 16: 23-41.
19