GVA James Barr

A Bilfinger Real Estate company

ReportReport

Report

GVA James Barr Quayside House 127 Fountainbridge Edinburgh EH3 9QG

Representations to the Fife LDP: Proposed Plan (December 2014)

On behalf of EPISO Boxes GP December 2014

gva.co.uk/scotland

EPISO Boxes GP Contents

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3 2. EPISO BOXES GP: OVERVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT INTENTIONS ...... 4 3. PROPOSED PLAN RESPONSE...... 7 4. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 11

Appendix 1: Supporting Legal Opinion by Maclay Murray & Spens LLP

P:\OFFICE\PLANNING\CURRENT JOBS\PRADERA Project Whyte\Reports\LDP\141205 Fife LDP Proposed Plan Reps - Final.docx

December 2014 2 gva.co.uk EPISO Boxes GP Representations to the Fife LDP – Proposed Plan

1. Introduction

1.1 This representation is submitted on behalf of EPISO Boxes GP in respect of the consolidated Fife Council Local Development Plan (LDP) Proposed Plan, December 2014 (hereafter referred to as the PP).

1.2 EPISO Boxes GP, own the Saltire Retail Park (SRP), which is positioned to the south of the Glenrothes urban area. The site extends to 15.6 acres (6.3 hectares) and accommodates 8 purpose built retail warehouse buildings. Current occupiers include Brantano, Homebase, Matalan, Carpet right, The Bed Shed and Poundstretcher, who recently opened within the former Focus DIY unit. Two of the retail sheds are currently vacant. In total, the Park comprises around 145,389 sq ft of Class 1 retail floorspace with over 490 car parking spaces.

1.3 The SRP represents, alongside the Kingdom Shopping Centre, the major retailing destinations for comparison goods shopping within the town. The Park is defined as a ‘commercial centre’, in recognition of its important role in Glenrothes’ retail hierarchy. This undoubtedly helps to retain non-food expenditure within the local catchment area, to the benefit of the wider town , whilst increasing the probability of linked trips with the town centre. This would otherwise be lost to competing destinations elsewhere in Fife, such as Fife Central Retail Park near Kirkcaldy, and leading to the proliferation of unsustainable shopping patterns in contravention of national policy.

1.4 Accordingly, it is forwarded the SRP will continue to play a key role in the future success of Glenrothes as an attractive location to undertake comparison shopping. Furthermore, our client;s intention to invest and modernise the park in the near future, will ensure the continuation of this valuable contribution.

1.5 Given the context above, this report has been set out in the following chapters; Section 2 sets out the background to the asset and our clients’ current redevelopment intentions for the park. Section 3 focuses on the response to the PP and finishes with a set of conclusions and requested amendments to the Plan.

December 2014 3 gva.co.uk EPISO Boxes GP Representations to the Fife LDP – Proposed Plan

2. EPISO Boxes GP: Overview and Development Intentions

2.1 This section provides the context to our client’s asset at Saltire Retail Park and also sets out the proposals they intend to take forward to transform the area in the near future.

Background & Planning Context

2.2 EPISO Boxes acquired the Retail Park in late 2010 from Glenrothes LLP, whilst expanding their retail park portfolio across the UK, with Pradera UK managing the asset.

2.3 Pradera operate on behalf of a number of retail property funds across Europe that invest in commercial assets, including shopping centres and retail warehouse parks. The business currently manages over 60 of these within the continent, with 20 in the UK, and has invested significantly in recent years to modernise their parks in locations such as Perth and Kilmarnock.

2.4 Since originally opening in 1988, the SRP has been a significant shopping location within Glenrothes, being the principal location in the town that can provide large warehouse units for retailing purposes. The presence of these types of operators within the town provides the population with convenient access to a range of larger scale unit shops, which cannot traditionally be accommodated within a town centre location due to physical and business operational reasons.

2.5 Since the first permission, the park has evolved over time under a range of planning consents to expand the offer, scale and type of retailing uses that are now available.

2.6 The most recent consent relating to the site is an outline outline planning permission, reference 04/03826/COPP, which was granted by Fife Council in 2005. This permission was for:

“Outline Planning Permission to reconfigure existing retail park, form additional 3,085sqm retail space, hot food takeaway, reconfigured access, parking and servicing arrangements”

2.7 Two reserved matters permissions were subsequently granted bringing forward two options for the detailed layout and design of the units. The second reserved matters approval was granted on 9 May 2007.

December 2014 4 gva.co.uk EPISO Boxes GP Representations to the Fife LDP – Proposed Plan

2.8 We are aware that pre-commencement planning conditions were purified and the permission then implemented prior to its expiry in 2010. No further action to complete the development works have occurred since this time.

2.9 The outline permission referenced above incorporated only one planning condition to control the form and scale of retail use permitted. This is set out under condition 5 of the permission, where it states that:

“(a) the development shall be used for the purpose of durable/non-food retail and for non-food retail warehousing and for no other purpose, including other uses which may otherwise have been permitted in terms of Class 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1992, or any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order.

(b) the max floorspace as permitted within 5(a) shall be 16,835 sqm”

2.10 Given that the redline boundary for the application site covered the entirety of the retail park, and under condition 5 (b), a maximum floorspace cap is applied to control the overall retail floorspace permitted covering both the existing and proposed floorspace, it is clear that condition 5(a) would equally apply to all units at the park. A legal opinion from our client’s legal advisors is enclosed at Appendix A, which backs up this position.

2.11 This point is particularly relevant in the context of these representations to the PP.

Future Development Intentions

2.12 EPISO Boxes GP continue to be committed to the delivery of the permission granted in 2005 and are exploring with officers of Fife Council, the best delivery route for these aspirations.

2.13 A formal pre-application submission was made in March this year, to commence initial discussions on the next steps in taking forward these actions. Since then, two meetings have also been arranged with officers to agree an appropriate application strategy.

2.14 In summary, the proposals are anticipated to include:

• Amendments to retail unit sizes and configuration but in-keeping with the upper floorspace threshold set by planning condition 5;

• Amendments to the main access route including changes to the scale of the roundabout;

December 2014 5 gva.co.uk EPISO Boxes GP Representations to the Fife LDP – Proposed Plan

• Amendments to internal car parking areas;

• Façade facelifts to existing units;

• Introduction of new (class 3/sui generis use) drive-thru food and beverage units; and

• Introducing a small ancillary allowance to permit food sales within the retail units to meet modern retail occupier requirements.

2.15 The proposals above are set out within a revised Masterplan that was submitted with that pre-application material.

2.16 The proposals above offer an excellent opportunity to enhance the shopping facilities available within Glenrothes and ensure that Saltire becomes a key attraction and asset for the town, within the local and wider Fife conurbation.

2.17 It is currently intended that the first stage of these application proposals will brought forward in 2015.

2.18 The Saltire Retail Park is an important component within Glenrothes’ retail hierarchy, helping to retain shopping expenditure within the town. As retailing trends continue to evolve, it is important for destinations such as Saltire to adapt as well to meet the rapid changes to consumer habits. This can be delivered in part with the full implementation of the permission for redevelopment, alongside modest complementary additions in respect of Class 3 uses.

2.19 The overall redevelopment proposals for Saltire are significant and will make a valuable contribution to the quality and range of retail provision in Glenrothes, generate new employment , help to clawback currently lost consumer expenditure and improve the sustainability of shopping patterns in this part of Fife, all in accordance with national policy aspirations under SPP.

2.20 As a result, our client looks forward to delivering these in the near future.

December 2014 6 gva.co.uk EPISO Boxes GP Representations to the Fife LDP – Proposed Plan

3. PROPOSED PLAN RESPONSE

3.1 The following section responds directly to the PP as published in October 2014 and will be followed by a range of recommendations for amendments, under Section 4 of this report, that have been influenced by the preceding comments.

Fife Spatial Strategy

3.2 In respect to the Spatial Strategy set out by the plan, our client supports the overall ambitions of the LDP to encourage economic activity and sustainable economic growth across the entire Fife area.

3.3 It is noted that the Plan will support investment and regeneration activities to help deliver these objectives and that the plan aims to encourage business activity and employment, to improve the overall living standards within the area.

3.4 This overall vision for the future of Fife is welcomed by our client and chimes well with their own aspirations for their asset at Saltire, where it is considered that their proposals will contribute significantly to help deliver these specifically for the Glenrothes settlement.

3.5 Their proposals would secure the regeneration of this important destination within the town, enhance its attractiveness and accessibility, create significant numbers of new jobs, whilst improving the availability of high quality shopping facilities, largely in accordance with the extant planning permission, to the local community.

3.6 Notwithstanding the above, we also note the commentary on page 15 of the LDP where this sets out the future strategy for the specific Glenrothes area, including comments at paragraph 44 that specifically reference our client’s asset at Saltire. It is noted that the Plan comments on the location of park, and asserts the potential for the site to be redeveloped in future for housing, given that it does not accord with the Council’s aspirations for Glenrothes town centre.

3.7 In regard to the above, we respectfully assert, and as discussed within recent meetings with officers of Fife Council, that it is still our client’s intention to redevelop and regenerate the park in accordance with the extant consent. The proposed policy wording is therefore inconsistent with these intentions.

3.8 Commercial centres, such as Saltire, have a significant role to play within the retail hierarchy across Fife, and are specifically supported by national policy within SPP. The Saltire centre already provides an important shopping offer to the Glenrothes community that complements the provision available within the town centre. Furthermore, this is an offer that helps retain expenditure within the local area,

December 2014 7 gva.co.uk EPISO Boxes GP Representations to the Fife LDP – Proposed Plan

whereas otherwise it would leak to rival destinations outwith the settlement, creating further unsustainable travel patterns to the detriment of the town.

3.9 Accordingly, we therefore request that the policy wording relating to the site’s future use be removed from the final Proposed Plan, given that they fail to accord with national policy support for commercial centres, and importantly, our client’s development intentions for the Saltire centre in the near future.

Policy 6: Town Centres

3.10 The proposed policy approach for Town Centres, under the heading ‘Town Centres First’, is noted under policy 6. This advocates a town centre first approach, in accordance with national policy, and states that this will be applied against any new proposals for uses that attract large numbers of visitors.

3.11 The policy follows this by setting out a retail hierarchy of preferred locations for these forms of uses, with the fourth category/preferred location titled ‘Out of Centre Commercial Centres’. We also note that in terms of these areas that the Plan states that their expansion will not be supported beyond limits of their current consents during the lifetime of the Local Development Plan. With Figure 6.4 setting out the types of uses that would be considered acceptable at each location.

3.12 Whilst our client recognises and supports the ‘town centre first’ policy, we are keen to firstly note that any planning application for new development at other destinations within the retail hierarchy must be determined on their own merits, in accordance with national policy, set out within SPP.

3.13 Given the evolutionary nature of retailing trends and niche business forms that continue to emerge, we note there may be many new development/business types that cannot always be accommodated within a traditional town centre. This is after all, the purpose of the sequential test; to assess the availability and suitability of sites in light of the development proposed. This is established in case law for example (Tesco Stores Ltd vs. Dundee City Council, March 2012)

3.14 In such a scenario, commercial centres, such as Saltire, can provide a viable alternative to help deliver such uses, rather than losing such opportunities to out of centre locations or those entirely outwith the Glenrothes settlement.

3.15 In terms of the hierarchy set out under Policy 6 on page 209, we request that in the minimum, the fourth category be re-worded to accord with SPP, and refer to these as destinations as ‘commercial centres’. SPP recognises the role and contribution of such areas as part of retail hierarchy’s, affording them greater support than other ‘out of centre’ locations for clear reasons. It is therefore ambiguous and confusing to refer to

December 2014 8 gva.co.uk EPISO Boxes GP Representations to the Fife LDP – Proposed Plan

these destinations as ‘Out of Centre Commercial Centres’ under the current policy wording.

3.16 Page 210 sets out the policy framework to clarify the approach to applying Policy 6 of the PP. Paragraphs 9-11 relate specifically to commercial centres, where it states that no further expansion beyond current approvals will be permitted and that as opportunities arise the Council will ‘redevelop existing commercial centres for other uses, the Council will seek to migrate retail development into town centres’.

3.17 Our client notes this aspiration and would simply comment that it is still their intention to bring forward the ambitious redevelopment proposals at the Saltire Centre. Given the form of occupiers that this scheme will seek to attract, it is our position that this can be delivered in a manner consistent with previous planning approvals and one that is complementary to Glenrothes town centre.

3.18 Furthermore, given the proximity to the Kingdom Shopping Centre, there could be significant benefits for linked trips that arise by retaining greater levels of spending within the town, which can materially benefit both locations overall.

3.19 We note that Paragraph 10 also sets out the Council’s support in principle for proposals seeking consent for ancillary retail uses, up to 10% of net floorspace per unit. Our client welcomes this statement in recognising the evolution of retailing trends and the need for greater flexibility to accommodate modern businesses. It is clear that this will be helpful in future in establishing its principle within the PP but at a scale that will not materially impact upon the vitality and viability of protected centres. This is therefore strongly supported.

Figures 6.4 (A + B)

3.20 We note that figures 6.4 (A and B) have been introduced as part of the PP to set out a clear policy framework for each commercial centre and establish the future intentions for their development over the lifetime of the plan.

3.21 For the Saltire Centre, figure 6.4 (A) states that the commercial centre comprises a mix of restricted Class 1 Non-Food units and Open Class 1 Non-Food units.

3.22 As a starting point, we are unclear where the planning history of the park as set out within the plan has been established from. This appears to neither reflect the original planning history records of the respective units or the 2004 consent, which as noted within Section 2, now applies to the entirety of the park. This establishes that all units are legally entitled to sell open non-food goods, in accordance with condition 5 of that consent. Please refer to appendix 1 of this report for the supporting legal opinion, which clarifies this position.

December 2014 9 gva.co.uk EPISO Boxes GP Representations to the Fife LDP – Proposed Plan

3.23 In respect to Figure 6.4 (B), we acknowledge the comments regarding future development of the Saltire centre, which seeks to limit new development to those permitted under existing consents and also bulky and limited non-food goods. The wording states that convenience (food) and Class 3 (food and drink uses) will not be supported.

3.24 As part of our client’s redevelopment proposals for the park, it is intended that a small number of Class 3 uses will form part of the new Saltire centre. It is understood that the original 2004 permission was intended to incorporate at least one such use, and this has been accepted by officers in previous discussions. We therefore consider that this position be accurately reflected within this part of the Plan to ensure it is consistent with the recent discussions with senior officers of the Council.

3.25 To conclude, the final points within Figure 6.4(B) in respect to the redevelopment of the Park for alternative uses have already been addressed in earlier sections of this report, and we would simply refer to those comments in reply.

Summary

3.26 Our client considers that the Council need to ensure that a strong development plan policy framework is in place which supports all of the key shopping destinations within the area in order for them to contribute to its attractiveness as a place to live, work and visit. There will be circumstances where it is not possible to accommodate all of these uses within town centres, and it should therefore be acknowledged that commercial centres can provide a suitable alternative in such instances.

3.27 Opportunities to enhance these locations and providing a complementary retail offer to the town centre is important for Glenrothes to help the settlement meet its potential, the needs of its sizeable population and the wider Council objectives for economic growth and new employment that the Local Development Plan aspires to deliver. These issues resonate strongly in light of prevailing economic conditions and Glenrothes must ensure it can be competitive in this new environment.

3.28 This also translates to other proposals for commercial leisure uses, where the delivery could significantly enhance the entertainment offer within the town and introduce more sustainable travel patterns for residents as a result. The Council are encouraged to recognise that allowing for a good retail and leisure offering at established retail locations within the Council area is an important component of this. The sequential test remains the key policy assessment to ensure these are located appropriately.

3.29 In light of the above comments, we have set out the clear changes that we consider appropriate to the PP within the final section of this report.

December 2014 10 gva.co.uk EPISO Boxes GP Representations to the Fife LDP – Proposed Plan

4. Conclusions & Recommendations

4.1 EPISO Boxes GP welcomes the opportunity to engage in the process for the development of a new plan covering Fife.

4.2 As noted in earlier sections, our client looks forward to developing their proposals further in 2015, to invest and regenerate the Saltire Retail Park and enhance its credentials as a complementary retail/leisure destination that can better serve the needs of the Glenrothes population.

4.3 In summary, their redevelopment proposals will deliver the following:

• Improve shopping quality and choice within the town;

• Contribute to more sustainable travel patterns for local residents;

• Deliver new job opportunities; and

• Regenerate a tired location, largely in accordance with previous permissions, that will enhance the quality of the built environment and appearance of the local area.

4.4 In light of the comments earlier in the report, the following changes to the Plan are recommended/requested:

Recommendation 1: Acknowledge the redevelopment proposals at the Saltire Centre and remove reference to alternative potential uses (i.e. housing) at paragraph 44, page 15 and Figure 6.4(B), page 216.

Recommendation 2: Promote a balanced network of centres and acknowledge the role of commercial centres to better reflect their importancewithin SPP at page 209 and paragraph 10, page 210.

Recommendation 3: Reflect the accurate Saltire Centre planning history and implemented permission relating to the sale of non-food goods across the units at Figure 6.4(A), page 213

Recommendation 4: Acknowledge the allowance for limited Class 3 use as part of the redevelopment proposals at Figure 6.4(B), page 216

Recommendation 5: Retain the support in principle for ancillary retail uses at paragraph 10, page 210

4.5 Please do contact Rob Newton or Steven Robb at GVA Edinburgh with any queries in the first instance.

December 2014 11 gva.co.uk Report

Appendix 1 Legal Opinion

REPORT ON PLANNING, SALTIRE RETAIL PARK

1. Background

The planning history of the Park is somewhat convoluted. The various units are subject to a patchwork of consents which have been granted over the years. However, outline permission was granted in 2004 for reconfiguration and benefits from 2 approvals of reserved matters, one of which has been implemented and is therefore live, albeit the scheme has not yet been built out.

The 2004 reconfiguration permission contains a two-pronged condition which controls use and limits overall floorspace.

The Council position is that the uses in the Park are controlled by the earlier consents pertaining to individual units, not by the 2004 reconfiguration.

The key question here is that of use, however it is also important to look at the floorspace restriction and how the two interlink.

2. Planning History

Details of the pre-reconfiguration history are set out for completeness but it is our view that these are now superseded by the reconfiguration in respect of the overall floorspace cap and the amended expression of the use restriction.

2.1 Pre-reconfiguration

2.1.1 87/G/0308 – change of use from light industrial to non-food retail warehouse with ancillary office and other accommodation and in outline for retail warehouse with ancillary office and other accommodation (Homebase / former MFI / Bensons Beds and Carpetright)

(a) retail use restricted to sale of carpets, other floorcoverings, household textiles and soft furnishings, furniture, garden equipment, plants and cut flowers, do-it-yourself and home improvement supplies, fitted kitchen, bedroom and bathroom units and fitments, domestic, joinery and hardware supplies, cycles and motor and motorcycle parts and accessories, boats and dinghies and caravans, camping and sailing equipment, electrical goods, and such other goods as are ancillary to the permitted sale uses

2.1.2 88/G/0089 – reserved matters for erection of non-food retail warehouse with ancillary car parking, service provision and landscaping

2.1.3 97/0802 – erection of 70,000 square foot non-food retail development, 10,000 square foot garden centre and associated car parking (former Focus – now Poundstretcher / Brantano)

2 (a) retail use restricted to sale of durable / non-food goods only within the range of furniture, floor coverings, textiles, electrical goods, DIY, hardware and gardening goods, pet goods including the sale of live pets, cages, aquariums, bulk food pet items and other ancillary veterinary and pet grooming services. Other ancillary goods to one of the permitted sales uses permitted up to 10% of the net floor space of the relevant unit.

2.1.4 00/02857/CFULL - erection of 32,000 square foot non-food retail warehouse development, associated parking, access and service area (Matalan)

(a) use restricted to sale of non-food goods only within the range of clothing and footwear, furniture, floor coverings, textiles, electrical goods, DIY, hardware, gardening goods, pet goods including live pets, cages, aquariums and bulk pet food items. Sale of clothing and footwear is permitted up to a maximum of 22,000 square feet of internal area of the unit.

2.1.5 02/03195/CFULL – granted on appeal – alteration and subdivision of retail warehouse to form 2 units, variation to condition 4 of 97/0802 to allow sale of footwear from sub-divided unit and alterations to car parking layout (former Focus – now Poundstretcher / Brantano)

(a) amended use restriction from 97/0802 - with the exception of new Unit B (Brantano) use remains as per 97/0802. From new Unit B, in addition to existing items, retailing of footwear is permitted.

2.2 Reconfiguration

2.2.1 04/03286/COPP – outline permission to reconfigure existing retail park, form additional 3,085 square metres retail space, hot food takeaway, reconfigured access, parking and servicing arrangements

(a) use restricted to durable/non-food retail and for non-food retail warehousing and for no other purpose

(b) maximum floorspace permitted within the restricted use shall be 16,835 square metres

2.2.2 05/03635/CARM – non-implemented reserved matters approval

(a) use restricted to durable / non-food retail and for non-food retail warehousing and for no other purpose

2.2.3 07/00559/CFULL – implemented reserved matters approval (incorrectly named as full permission)

(a) use restricted to durable / non-food retail and for non-food retail warehousing and for no other purpose

3. Council Position

The August 2014 Committee Draft of the emerging LDP shows the Council’s view of the various use restrictions across the Park:

3 (a) Restricted Class 1 Non-Food – Homebase, former MFI and Poundstretcher

(b) Open Class Non-Food – Matalan, Brantano, Carpetright / Bensons Beds

This does not appear align with the reconfiguration which, in our view, provides open non-food across the whole Park. However, it also does not tally exactly with the position as reviewed at 2.1 above, where all of the units have a specifically restricted non-food use if the founding permissions are taken as the basis.

It would be useful to have the Council’s view on where these uses as detailed in the emerging LDP arise from.

4. Analysis of condition 5 of 2004 permission

Condition 5 has two strands covering use and floorspace.

“The permission hereby granted shall be restricted as follows:

(a) the development shall be used for the purpose of durable / non-food retail and for non-food retail warehousing and for no other purpose, including other uses which may otherwise have been permitted in terms of Class 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1992, or any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order

(b) the maximum floorspace as permitted within 5(a) shall be 16,835sqm”

The first part of the condition imposes a restriction on the retail uses permitted across the Park, the second imposes an overall floorspace restriction.

The redline application boundary of the reconfiguration covers the entire Park and therefore all of the existing / continuing units as well as the units / space to be re- developed.

It is, in our view, clear that the intention of the Council was to restrict floorspace across the whole Park – affecting both existing and future units.

It is not possible to use one part of condition to impose a whole park restriction and not view the other part as also applying to the Park as a whole without some wording that provides a caveat. There is no such wording in the 2004 condition. In fact, here we have almost the opposite in that the floorspace restriction in 5(b) refers back to the use restriction in 5(a). Therefore the floorspace restriction and the use must both apply to the Park in its entirety.

The 2004 use restriction (which is effectively a relaxation across certain units) is not specifically limited to the new units permitted by the 2004 permission, nor is it time-limited to come into force on their construction. It is simply drafted as applying to the "development" which, as a matter of natural interpretation, covers the application site as a whole. Once implemented, whether that is in whole or in part, that permission takes precedence over what has gone before. Had the 2004 permission not been implemented, the amendment to the use restriction in existing units would not have taken effect.

4 It is open to question what the use status is of the units which are to be demolished as part of the 2004 permission. As they fall within the redline, they are arguably subject to the amended use restriction until such time as they are demolished, and, if trading, would count towards the floorspace restriction.

5. Conclusions

It is our view that the 2004 outline permission, once implemented, superseded the previously granted unit-specific use restrictions. A new use restriction of durable / non-food retail and non-food retail warehousing now applies across the Park. The fact that the implementation was in part only does not matter - the reconfiguration permission is live.

Had the intention been to continue the more detailed use restrictions contained in the older permissions, this could easily have been achieved by applying the new, more relaxed, use restriction only to those new buildings permitted by the reconfiguration.